The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002, on the basis of his employment with Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FCCJ).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Burns, has been employed as an adjunct instructor of FCCJ since March 1989. FCCJ is a member employer under FRS. Adjunct instructors traditionally have been employed by FCCJ on a class-by-class, semester-by-semester basis, and have no expectation of employment beyond any single semester. Petitioner knew this from his date of first hire. When Petitioner began work with FCCJ, all adjunct instructors were given a contract for each term and each course. This practice continued for all instructors and classes until the year 2000. Despite the semester-to-semester, repetitive contracts, occasionally Petitioner's courses were of a duration longer than one semester, and Petitioner was sometimes evaluated only on an annual basis. These evaluations were for purposes of certifying Petitioner and similarly situated adjunct instructional personnel for further semester contracts. At all times material, Petitioner taught on three campuses and taught college courses in biology and earth science; acted as a facilitator in the laboratory; and taught Adult Studies courses. At all times material, sixty percent of Petitioner's time was spent teaching Adult Studies courses. From 1989 until January 1, 2000, Petitioner was provided semester contracts for each of the three foregoing functions: college courses, lab facilitation, and Adult Studies courses. Every contract clearly acknowledged, in pertinent part, 3. This contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws, Florida State Board of Education Rules and Florida Community College at Jacksonville Board of Trustees rules and regulations now existing or hereinafter lawfully enacted or promulgated. In furtherance thereof, the Contractor expressly agrees to become aware of and comply with all such applicable regulations, including but not limited to those addressing discrimination/affirmative action and sexual harassment. * * * The Contractor agrees and understands that he/she is not entitled to receive benefits made available by the College to its full-time employees. The Contractor further agrees and understands that his/her services are of a temporary nature, and that the College does not agree to provide the Contractor with any future employment or contract whether temporary, permanent or otherwise. The relationship hereby created between the Contractor and the College shall be deemed to have been voluntarily terminated by the Contractor upon the termination or expiration of this agreement. The Contractor agrees and understands that the compensation described herein is the entire compensation due to Contractor for performance of services pursuant to this contract. Specifically, Contractor agrees and understands that he/she shall not be entitled to wages or hours similar to those provided to College employees. * * * 9. The Contractor and the College understand and hereby agree that this contract does not and shall not be deemed to create an employment relationship. From January 1, 2000, through June 2002, Petitioner was not provided individual contracts for his Adult Studies classes, but was provided contracts for his other courses and lab facilitation work. In 2000, FCCJ began implementing a new computer system and, as a result, some adjunct instructors were not given individual contracts for each course. Adult Studies was one program area where time cards, rather than individual contracts, were used. No one at FCCJ ever told Petitioner that he had become a full or part-time employee, as opposed to an adjunct instructor. At various times during the period after January 1, 2000, Petitioner and other adjunct instructors approached Dean of Adult Studies, Lloyd Watkins, and asked him where their contracts were. The Dean inquired of FCCJ's Human Resources Department and was told there were too many contracts to do and so they would not be issued. It is not certain that Dean Watkins ever conveyed this information to Petitioner. However, throughout the period at issue, Petitioner used the time cards and understood that his employment was on a class by class, semester by semester basis. The issue of FRS benefits vis-á-vis independent contractor status did not arise until after Petitioner had been terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to participate in FRS from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Al Millar, Esquire 4627 Ocean Street Mayport, Florida 32233 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Simone Marstiller, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on February 5, 2001.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1999, Respondent, North Florida Community College (NFCC), advertised for candidates for the position of Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Respondent advertised to fill this position by placing an advertisement in local newspapers, as well as in Gainesville, Florida. Additionally, an advertisement for this position was placed in the Affirmative Action Register, which is a publication for minorities, as well as in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The advertisement did not specify a salary and specified an application deadline of November 9, 1999. The position vacancy advertisement included the following: Qualifications include: an earned doctorate from an accredited institution of higher education; at least five years of successful progressively responsible administrative experience in academic programs, preferably at a community college; some previous experience in teaching at the postsecondary level; and/or experience as a counselor or administrator for student services functions, this latter qualification being preferable. Experience in the Florida Community College System is a plus. William Hunter is the Human Resources Director for NFCC. Mr. Hunter was responsible for placing the advertisements for the Vice President's position in the various publications. He is also responsible for ensuring that search committees are appointed, communicating with applicants, determining salaries to be offered to individual candidates based upon an established procedure, and offering positions by telephone to those persons selected. A search committee was appointed by the President of NFCC, Dr. Grissom. There were five members of the selection committee, including Clyde Alexander, NFCC's Athletic Director and Equity Coordinator. Mr. Alexander is African-American. Initially, 51 persons applied for the position. The selection committee narrowed the list of applicants from 51 to eight semi-finalists. Mr. Hunter was instructed to notify each semi-finalist that he/she was selected. He notified each of the semi- finalists by telephone and coordinated interview dates. Mr. Hunter sent a letter to each semi-finalist. The letters informed the candidates of their selection as a semi-finalist, confirmed their interview date and time, and advised them that NFCC would be paying for the travel expenses to Madison, Florida, for the interviews. The letters to the semi-finalists also stated that the salary range was $45,000 to $75,000 per year, "depending on experience." The salary range was established by the college's Board of Trustees. Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner was selected as a semi-finalist. Also among the semi-finalists were Dr. Barry Weinberg and Dr. Thomas Eaves, both white males. Interviews were conducted between December 1 and December 9, 1999. Each of the semi-finalists was given a tour of the campus and had an opportunity to meet with various college officials, as well as the President and members of the search committee. After the interviews of the semi-finalists were completed, the selection committee provided a list of finalists to the President.1/ The first choice of the selection committee was Dr. Barry Weinberg, who at that time was employed as Vice President for College Advancement at Rockingham Community College in Wentworth, North Carolina. Dr. Weinberg holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from State University of New York at New Paltz; a Master of Science in Student Personnel Services (Higher Education Administration) from State University of New York at Albany; a Certificate of Continuing Studies in Applied Behavioral Sciences from Johns Hopkins University; and a Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Hunter offered the position to Dr. Weinberg pursuant to instructions from President Grissom. Despite the letter which informed the semi-finalists that the top of the salary range was $75,000, Mr. Hunter was informed by the President that no applicant could be offered more than $70,000 per year because of a budget shortfall. The salary to be offered to an applicant was based on the application of an established formula to the applicant's experience as follows: subtracting the minimum salary from the maximum salary in the published salary range for the position; dividing that number by (30) to arrive at a multiplier; multiplying the applicant's years of relevant experience (after subtracting the years of experience required to qualify for the position) by the multiplier; and adding the result to the minimum salary in the range. The multiplier for the Vice President's position was $1,000. In applying the salary formula to Dr. Weinberg, Mr. Hunter determined that he had 29 years of relevant experience. He then subtracted the five years required experience, resulting in Dr. Weinberg having credit for 24 years of relevant experience, for purposes of the salary formula. The 24 years of experience was multiplied by $1,000 and added to the published base salary of $45,000. This resulted in the initial starting salary to be offered to Dr. Weinberg to be $69,000. Mr. Hunter had authority from President Grissom to add an additional amount of $2,500 per year in order to attract a candidate, provided that no candidate was offered more than $70,000 per year. Dr. Weinberg did not accept the initial offer of $69,000. Mr. Hunter then offered $70,000, which was ultimately rejected by Dr. Weinberg. Pursuant to direction from President Grissom, Mr. Hunter then offered the job to Petitioner. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration from Culver- Stockton College; a Master of Science in Guidance Counseling from University of Nevada; a Doctorate in Counselor Education from the University of Iowa; and holds a certificate from Harvard University in the Management Development Program. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula by determining that Petitioner had 21 years of relevant experience. He subtracted the five required years of experience resulting in 16 years of relevant experience. After multiplying 16 by $1,000 and adding that to the minimum salary of $45,000, Mr. Hunter offered $61,000.00 to Petitioner. When Petitioner did not accept the offer, he increased the offer to $62,500. Although he was authorized to offer him $63,500, it was Mr. Hunter's understanding, after a telephone conversation with Petitioner, that Petitioner would not accept the job for less than $82,000. Therefore, Mr. Hunter did not bother offering the additional $1,000 to Petitioner. In any event, whether or not Mr. Hunter offered $63,500 to Petitioner, he was not authorized to offer $70,000 to Petitioner, as had been offered to Dr. Weinberg, because of the application of the salary formula to Petitioner. Pursuant to instruction from Dr. Grissom, Mr. Hunter next offered the position to Dr. Thomas Eaves. Dr. Eaves holds a doctorate and lesser degrees from North Carolina State University, and has teaching and related research experience at numerous universities. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula and determined that Dr. Eaves should be offered $67,000. Mr. Hunter was authorized by the President to an additional $500.00 on top of the $2,5000 salary "sweetener" because the college had been turned down twice. Mr. Hunter called Dr. Eaves and initially offered him $67,000. Ultimately, Mr. Hunter increased the offer to $70,000, which was accepted by Dr. Eaves. Petitioner left Virginia Commonwealth University in July 2001 to work at West Chester University where he is Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Student Support Services. His starting salary at West Chester University was $84,500. His current salary, which was effective July 1, 2002, is $88,500. If Petitioner had accepted the position at NFCC for $63,500, he would have received a five percent pay increase in 2000 to $66,675 per year. However, because of a college-wide salary freeze which has been in place since 2000, Petitioner would not have received any further salary increases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 13th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by petitioner, Damon L. Lee, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, petitioner intends to work in a developmental services facility for retarded persons. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. Petitioner is now barred from working in such a facility because of a disqualifying offense which occurred on June 1, 1994. On that date, petitioner was arrested for the offense of "battery on spouse, domestic violence," a misdemeanor. On the evening of June 1, 1994, petitioner went to the residence of his girlfriend in Baldwin, Florida, where he discovered that another male was present. As he started to leave the premises, his girlfriend, who was four months pregnant, followed him outside and an altercation ensued. She took a broom and began smashing the windows of petitioner's vehicle, causing $458.32 in damages. While attempting to stop her, petitioner grabbed his girlfriend and pushed her to the ground. Although not seriously injured, the girlfriend received marks on her body where petitioner grabbed her. After an investigation was conducted by local law enforcement officials, petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic violence. Whether petitioner pled guilty or nolo contendere to the charge is unclear. In any event, on July 13, 1994, he was given three months supervised probation and was required to enroll in, and complete, an anger control class. Thereafter, he successfully completed all terms of probation and a six-week anger control class. Other than this incident, petitioner has never been charged with any other crime. After being disqualified from employment, petitioner appeared before a three-person committee composed of local HRS employees seeking an exemption. At that time, he was told that his request was being denied because he had not brought to the hearing proof that he had successfully completed the terms of his probation and the anger control class. This proceeding followed. When the incident occurred, petitioner was employed by Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). Because of his arrest, however, JEA terminated his employment. For the same reason, he was denied employment with AT&T Corporation. He eventually obtained employment as a program assistant with Kincaid Cluster Homes, a facility for retarded persons in Jacksonville, Florida, where he worked for six weeks until the disqualifying offense was discovered. He is presently enrolled in a special HRS program known as the Project Independence Program for food stamp recipients since he has custody of, and is caring for, two small children. Petitioner, who is twenty-three years of age, has completed course work at Lake City Junior College and is now enrolled at Florida Junior College in Jacksonville seeking to attain a degree in computer programming. He desires an exemption so that he can work on a part-time basis at Kincaid Cluster Homes, which has promised to rehire him if his request for an exemption is approved. Besides needing the income for college, petitioner also has children who rely upon him for their support. Petitioner was described as a responsible, reliable worker at Kincaid Cluster Homes and is well-liked by the staff and clients. This was not contradicted. He will not present a danger to the safety or well-being of that facility's clients. Based on petitioner's own testimony, as corroborated by letters from third parties, and the testimony of his former co-worker at Kincaid Cluster Homes, it is found that petitioner has presented sufficient evidence of rehabilitation so as to justify approving the exemption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 27th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED
Findings Of Fact Charles Duhart resides at 956 Forest Ridge Court, Apartment 202, Lake Mary, Florida. His residence is a condominium, which he owns. He has resided there for 10 months. Mr. Duhart was married to Mary Duhart in April, 1974. The Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered October 25, 1988, which terminated their marriage, states: The parties shall have shared parental responsibility for the minor children of the marriage. The Wife is designated as the primary residential custodian of the minor children of the marriage. The non-custodian parent, the Husband, shall have liberal and reasonable contact and visitation with the children of the marriage, subject to reasonable notice by the Husband to the Wife. . . . Mary Duhart resides at 121 Wildwood Drive, Sanford, Florida. She and Mr. Duhart jointly bought the property in 1985, and she was awarded the property in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The two children in question are Katisha, who is 15 years old, and Serita, who is 14 years old. Both girls, together with a third child aged eight years, were born of the Duhart's marriage. During the 1988-89 school year, Katisha, who was in ninth grade, attended Lake Mary High School, and Serita, who was in eighth grade, attended Greenwood Lakes Middle School, as well as special programs at Lake Mary High School. Greenwood Lakes Middle School is in the Lake Mary High School attendance zone. Both girls enrolled in Lake Mary High School at the beginning of the 1989-90 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, the two children lived with their grandmother part of the time and their mother the remainder of the time. Their grandmother lived in the Lake Mary High School attendance zone. Mr. and Mrs. Duhart caused the grandmother to be appointed the legal guardian of the children, pursuant to Letters of Guardianship of the Person entered November 28, 1988. By so doing, under a procedure no longer available, the children could attend the schools whose attendance zone serves the grandmother's residence. This guardianship has never been dissolved or terminated. At the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, the two children went to live with their father, whose condominium is in the Lake Mary High School attendance zone. Although they spend the weekends with their mother and infrequent nights with their grandmother or at friends' homes, Katisha and Serita regularly reside with their father each weeknight from Sunday through Thursday nights, inclusive. Since the beginning of the 1989-90 school year began, the children primarily have lived with their father. Since the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, Mr. and Mrs. Duhart have reduced the child support payments required of Mr. Duhart by the Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage. Although Mr. Duhart continues to pay the usual amount through the clerk's office, Mrs. Duhart returns to him approximately one half of the support money in recognition of the fact that he now has two of the three children most of the time. By letter dated September 27, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioners that it had determined that Katisha and Serita were attending Lake Mary High School in violation of Policy 4.003. Consequently, the children had been administratively withdrawn from Lake Mary High School and administratively enrolled at Seminole High School, which serves their correct attendance zone, according to the letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the School Board of Seminole County, Florida enter a Final Order enrolling Katisha and Serita Duhart in Lake Mary High School. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5898 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-4: adopted. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6-10: adopted. 11: first sentence adopted as to children spending weekends with Mrs. Duhart and rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence as to the suggestion that they do not spend the remainder of the time with their father, with the possible exception of isolated overnight visits with friends or their grandmother. Remainder rejected as subordinate. 12: adopted. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 135 Wall St., Ste. 200 Orlando, FL 32801 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent The School Board of Seminole County, Florida 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32772 Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Did the Polk County School Board have just cause to justify its termination of Respondent's employment?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: Petitioner Polk County School Board is the county agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary and adult education in Polk County, and to facilitate that responsibility the Board hires certified teachers for classroom and administrative activity. Respondent Stephen Anderson has been employed in the Polk County School District for five years. Prior to his employment with the Polk County School District, Respondent taught school in the State of Massachusetts for 22 years. Respondent has a professional services contract of employment with the Polk County School District. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a GED classroom instructor and work study coordinator at Bill Duncan Opportunity Center (Duncan Center). During Respondent's tenure at Duncan Center, his classroom responsibilities ended at 11:00 a.m., after which he acted as work study coordinator until the end of his workday at 3:15 p.m. However, at times Respondent's coaching duties at other schools required that he leave Duncan Center before the end of the workday. On April 11, 1996, sometime between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., Respondent left Duncan Center for the purpose of going to Lake Gibson High School (Lake Gibson) to sign award certificates for members of the Lake Gibson girls' basketball team that he coached. The award certificates were to have been presented at the banquet earlier that week, but the certificates were not delivered to the banquet for Respondent's signature as planned. Therefore, Respondent made arrangements to be at Lake Gibson between 1:30-1:45 p.m. in the afternoon of April 11, 1996, to sign the certificates. Throughout his tenure at Duncan Center, Respondent had routinely left Duncan Center early to attend to his coaching responsibilities at Lake Gibson and another school where he had coached basketball earlier. Greg Bondurant, principal of Duncan Center, was fully aware of Respondent's practice of leaving Duncan Center early to attend to his coaching duties, which included times before and after the basketball season at Lake Gibson, notwithstanding the testimony of Greg Bondurant regarding times before and after the basketball season to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility. Furthermore, Respondent advised his teacher's aide, John R. Edwards, that he was leaving early the day in question for the purpose of going to Lake Gibson. Although Respondent did not sign out on the afternoon of April 11, 1996, it appears from the record that signing out was not a procedure that either Respondent or other teachers at Duncan Center took seriously. In fact, Mr. Bondurant was aware that teachers at the Duncan Center were not signing out on a regular basis. Apparently, "signing out" was not a major concern at Duncan Center. Upon leaving Duncan Center, Respondent proceeded down Reynolds Road in the direction of Highway 92. Upon arriving at Highway 92, Respondent turned right (east) on Highway 92 intending to go to Wizard Golf Store to possibly purchase a golf club. Upon approaching Wizard Golf Store, Respondent noticed a "closed" sign in the window, and did not stop. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded east on Highway 92 to the next left turn, which is Saddle Creek Road, intending to go through to Combee Road, which would take him to Lake Gibson. However, at this point, Respondent developed an urgent need to urinate. Since sometime around June 1995, Respondent has suffered severe problems with his urinary tract, and has suffered from severe abdominal pains caused by an intense feeling of a need to urinate frequently. Respondent has difficulty in beginning the urine flow, as well as stopping the urine flow, which has resulted in Respondent urinating on himself on different occasions. At times, Respondent was required to stroke (milk) or shake his penis in order to start or stop the flow of urine or to drain the urine from his penis after urinating. Robert Bevis, M. D., specializes in internal medicine, and has treated Respondent for his urinary tract problems since February, 1991. Dr. Bevis believes that Respondent could be required to stroke the shaft of his penis to empty his urinary tract. Dr. Bevis has treated Respondent with a variety of drugs, which have not been successful, and believes that surgery may be necessary. Upon turning onto Saddle Creek Road, Respondent looked for a place to urinate. Although he saw the bait shop, Respondent did not attempt to go to the bait shop to urinate because it did not occur to him that the bait shop would have a public bathroom. Respondent did not see a portable public toilet across from the bait shop on Saddle Creek Road or anywhere else. While there was testimony of a portable public toilet being in the area four days after the incident, the portable public toilet had been removed prior to the hearing, and there was no evidence that the portable public toilet was present on April 11, 1996. Respondent proceeded on down Saddle Creek Road for approximately six tenths of a mile to an area of Saddle Creek Park that Respondent believed to be isolated, and would provide the necessary privacy. Respondent pulled into an area where he saw no cars or people. This area of the Saddle Creek Park is commonly referred to as the Point. Unbeknown to Respondent at that time, the Point is an area of the park known by law enforcement officers and others in the community to be frequented by homosexuals seeking to engage in lewd activity. Respondent exited his car and walked up a path with the intention of urinating. As Respondent walked up the path, he passed a male individual who was standing with his back toward Respondent just off the pathway, approximately 20 feet. Respondent did not talk to, or have any contact with, this individual, but proceeded on up the path pass this individual, following the path as it curved to the left, out of the individual's line of sight. Upon reaching this area, Respondent unzipped his pants, took out his penis, and, after some time, began to urinate. As Respondent looked to his left he noticed a male individual come around the corner and stop. Respondent did not recognize this individual as the individual he had seen earlier because he had not seen that individual's face. Respondent stared at this individual because he was shocked to see this individual, and uncertain as to why the individual was there. Respondent then did what he needed to do to stop the flow of urine, placed his penis in his pants and zipped his pants. At that point the individual had walked away from Respondent back down the path. As Respondent walked back down the path he noticed a vehicle pull up parallel to his vehicle. Respondent moved on down to the area where he saw the first individual. Although Respondent could see two individuals in conversation, one standing outside the vehicle and the other individual inside the vehicle, Respondent was partially secluded by a thicket. Not sure of what was going on, but still feeling the intense urge to urinate, Respondent began urinating while watching the two individuals over his right shoulder. After Respondent finished urinating, he did what he needed to do to drain his penis of urine and zipped his pants. At that point, the two individuals were approaching Respondent. The individuals identified themselves as undercover police officers and placed Respondent under arrest, charging him with two counts of exposing his sexual organs and two counts of lewdness. The charges were predicated on the officers' belief that Respondent was masturbating. The arrest occurred at approximately 1:30 p.m. Respondent was released later that day on his own personal recognizance. Respondent protested his innocence to the arresting officers, explaining to the officers his problem with urinating, but was told that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that they were arresting everything that moved. Although the testimony of the police officers is not totally accepted, it is not found that their testimony was pure fabrication. Rather, it is found that, due to their mindset and expectations, the police officers misinterpreted much of the conduct they observed involving the Respondent on April 11, 1996. On that day, the police officers were patrolling Saddle Creek Park, undercover, as part of a law enforcement effort to rid the park of illegal lewd and lascivious conduct and the solicitation of sex (primarily homosexual) activities for which Saddle Creek Park, specifically the Point, had become notorious to law enforcement and to others. The police officers involved in this case expected users of park to know its reputation, and they expected to find homosexual men using the park for notorious purposes. As a result, knowing nothing about Respondent, they misinterpreted innocent behavior of the Respondent as evidence of criminal conduct. They attributed little or no importance to the behavior of Respondent that was evidence of his innocence of criminal charges. There is no evidence in the record of what became of Respondent in the criminal process after his arrest. The headlines of the newspaper articles appearing in the Lakeland Ledger and the Tampa Tribune concerning the undercover operation and subsequent arrests were: Corrections superintendent charged in sting and Warden arrested in sex sting, respectively. The Respondent's arrest is covered in each article at the end of the article on the follow-up page. Apparently, the Correction Superintendent's arrest was more newsworthy than Respondent's arrest. Greg Bondurant, Paul Wenz and James Lemanski, the principal and two teachers at Duncan Center, respectively, all concluded that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher at Duncan Center had been seriously reduced or impaired by the notoriety of this incident. Their conclusions were reached on the basis of shock and disbelief, by students and teachers alike, that Respondent had been arrested; "jokes made and stuff about Saddle Creek Park, and stuff like that"; and that "everybody became the brunt of jokes." These witnesses considered this a normal reaction for students and teachers alike. Greg Bondurant testified that after a couple or three days "everything died down after that." Some members of Greg Bondurant's church questioned him about what was going on at Duncan Center. However, there was no direct testimony from students or members of the community, outside the school system, to support these witnesses' conclusion that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been seriously reduced or impaired. Respondent has been married for 30 years and has one child 29 years of age. Respondent was an exemplary employee for 22 years in Massachusetts, and has been an exemplary employee for the past five years in Polk County. Respondent was the 1994-95 teacher of the year at Duncan Center. Respondent denies he is homosexual or bisexual, and claims he has never engaged in any homosexual behavior. The evidence supports those claims. Respondent's wife has never witnessed Respondent engage in any homosexual behavior. Many of Respondent's friends testified that Respondent is a man of high moral character, and none has ever witnessed Respondent engage in any immoral or illicit behavior. James Dean, principal at East Area Opportunity School in Polk County and past principal at Duncan Center during the first part of Respondent's tenure there, has had a personal and professional relationship with Respondent for five years. Dean considers Respondent to be a man of high moral character and given the opportunity would hire Respondent to teach at his school. There is no evidence in the record from any member of the community unrelated to Petitioner to support the Petitioner's conclusion that Respondent's effectiveness has been impaired or has been seriously reduced. On the other hand, several members of the community, some of them fellow teachers, believe that Respondent was an excellent teacher up to the incident and would continue to be an excellent teacher if reinstated. Furthermore, these members of the community believe that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the community has not been impaired or seriously reduced, and if reinstated he would be an asset to the school system and to the community. From all accounts, Respondent is an excellent teacher. Taken together, the evidence is clear that on April 11, 1996, the Respondent entered Saddle Creek park for the express purpose of relieving himself because of an intense desire to urinate caused by a prostate problem. Respondent's manner of starting and stopping the urine flow and the clearing of his penis of urine after urinating was also necessary due to his prostate problem. Furthermore, there was no intent on the part of Respondent, while in Saddle Creek Park on April 11, 1996, to expose or exhibit his sexual organ in a vulgar or indecent manner. Likewise, the evidence is clear that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has not been seriously reduced or impaired as a result of the Respondent's arrest on April 11, 1996. Furthermore, the record will not support a finding that Respondent left his worksite early without authorization on April 11, 1996. Petitioner's evidence failed to prove the allegations filed against Respondent. The ultimate findings of fact are based primarily on an evaluation of the testimony and demeanor of the Respondent and the arresting police officers. However, the testimony of the Respondent's character witnesses also weighed heavily; they were credible, and many of them knew Respondent very well and for a long period of time, some under circumstances that would be expected to have given them an opportunity to learn if Respondent engaged in, or had a reputation for engaging in, the kind of conduct of which he was accused.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, recommended that Respondent be reinstated as of the date of the final order and that Respondent be awarded back pay and benefits during the period of suspension without pay. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-66847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire 150 East Davidson Street Post Office Box 1578 Bartow, Florida 33831-1578 Mark Herdman, Esquire 34650 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent wrongfully terminated Petitioner's continuing contract of employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is currently a doctoral level graduate student. At all times relevant hereto, she held a continuing contract as a professor at SCC in the Networking and Electronics Program (the "Networking Program"). Respondent is a community college within the state community college system. It is governed by its Board of Trustees. Dr. Ann McGee is president of SCC; vice president of Educational Services is Dr. Carol Hawkins. Angela Kersenbrock is the dean of Career Programs, including the Networking Program. Department chair in that program is Leon Portelli. Beginning in calendar year 2003, SCC began to experience decreased student enrollment, especially in the area of the Networking Program. SCC instituted a program review under Dean Kersenbrock's tutelage. A program review provides for the collection of relevant data to ascertain the continued viability of programs within the college. The program review of the Networking Program found low and declining enrollment and retention, a perceived job market decrease, difficulty in recruiting industry partners, and limited internships for students. Based on those findings, a series of recommendations were made to improve the Networking Program. Included in the recommendations were the following: increase class size, reduce faculty (Reduction in Force (RIF)), cross-teaching in other areas, cut back on adjuncts, reduce contract length, consolidate courses and sections, and work closely with industry partners to locate jobs for graduates of the program. Many of the recommendations were implemented even before finalization of the program review. However, in February 2007, Dean Kersenbrock decided the measures being taken were not alleviating the problem. She then submitted her formal recommendations to the Board of Trustees. A formal presentation was made to the Board of Trustees on April 17, 2007. After much discussion and debate, the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation from Dean Kersenbrock's review committee to implement a RIF in the Networking Department. At that time, there were five faculty members in the department, including Petitioner. The other faculty members were: John DelGado, Ben Taylor, Bill Irwin, and Gary Belcher. The proposed RIF intended to reduce the faculty from five to two. Irwin and Belcher were immediately selected for termination due to the fact that they could teach fewer topics within the department than could the other three staff. After they were terminated, SCC had to select one of the three remaining staff (DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner) to be the final cut for the RIF. Each of the three had identified strengths and weaknesses; so, the selection was a difficult one to make. In order to make the decision, the following factors were considered: (1) the essentiality of the position, (2) work performance, (3) attendance record, and (4) supervisory recommendations. If all those factors are equal between the faculty members being considered, then length of service to the college would be the determining factor.1 SCC evaluated DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner and found them, on aggregate, to be equal as far as the four factors were concerned. Each faculty member had strengths and weaknesses within the four categories, but were essentially "tied" when it came down to making a decision.2 Petitioner correctly pointed out that of the three faculty members, she was the only one who had experience making presentations at national level conferences. This fact weighed in her favor, but it was not enough to outweigh the strengths of the other faculty members. Likewise, Petitioner has the ability to teach a number of different classes, a positive in her favor. But, again, her abilities did not make her more essential than the other two. Some questions were raised about Petitioner's work performance, attendance record, and poor supervisory recommendations. However, none of those questions indicated that Petitioner was inferior to her fellow professors. Neither of the parties offered into evidence a true comparison of the three faculty members. There was some indication that each had strengths and weaknesses, but each person's individual assets or liabilities weren't described with any particularity. Thus, a substantive de novo review of that part of Respondent's decision making process is not possible. When all was said and done, Petitioner's length of service at SCC was shorter than the other two, and, thus, she was selected for the final RIF cut. Pursuant to SCC policies and procedures, an employee affected by a RIF must be given at least two weeks notice prior to the reduction taking effect. Petitioner was advised twice concerning her termination: once in a letter from the director of Human Resources Development--letter dated April 26, 2007--and once in a letter from SCC's president, E. Ann McGee--letter dated May 17, 2007. The latter correspondence provided Petitioner her appeal rights. Petitioner was provided her severance package in accordance with SCC policies. President McGee's letter to Petitioner stated in part, "You have the right to appeal the Board's decision pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." However, the letter did not address Petitioner's right to appeal directly to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be given an opportunity to select a direct appeal to the Board of Seminole Community College. As far as the instant case is concerned, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and the termination of her contract would be upheld. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 16th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner employed the Respondent as a teacher pursuant to a Professional Services Contract. On April 1, 1999, the Respondent, then employed as a teacher at Jenkins Middle School in Haines City, Florida, became involved in an incident between a student and the parent of another student, during which the parent physically assaulted the student. The Respondent’s involvement was deemed to be inappropriate by the school principal. On April 19, 1999, the Respondent received a letter of reprimand for his actions during the incident. Although the Respondent noted that he did not agree with the reprimand, there was no appeal taken. By September of 1999, the Respondent had transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School in Lakeland, Florida, where he taught math. During his first month there, the Respondent told a male student that the student looked and behaved like a girl. The student complained to Eileen Killebrew, the school’s principal, who wrote a letter of reprimand to the Respondent dated September 24, 1999, noting that middle school students are "very emotional and impressionable" and that they look to teachers for "guidance and support." She warned the Respondent that his students "certainly do not expect to be demeaned in any way." She advised the Respondent that "further instances of inappropriate behavior will call for further disciplinary action." The Respondent received a copy of the letter and did not challenge the reprimand. By November of 1999, a number of additional complaints against the Respondent had been received from students or parents. By letter dated November 2, 1999, the principal advised the Respondent of the specific complaints (essentially a pattern of making disparaging or otherwise inappropriate remarks to students, to parents of students and to other teachers) and asked that he submit a written response to the allegations. The Respondent did not submit the requested response, but instead met with the principal to discuss the matter. By letter of reprimand dated November 17, 1999, the principal again advised the Respondent that his behavior was unacceptable and warned that additional instances would result in further disciplinary action. The Respondent received a copy of the letter and no appeal of the reprimand was taken. On February 8, 2000, the Respondent wrote a disciplinary referral for a student. On the referral, the Respondent wrote that he had told the student to "shut his redneck mouth up." Disciplinary referrals are commonly sent to the student’s parents. On February 10, 2000, the principal issued another letter of reprimand to the Respondent, stating that she found it "reprehensible that you would resort to this kind of childish behavior when dealing with students." She further wrote that she had "serious concerns about your teaching effectiveness and indeed about your professional future unless improvements are made." She again warned that further incidents could result in more severe disciplinary action. In August of 2000, the principal received information regarding inappropriate statements made to a parent during a meeting of the parent and her female child with the school’s guidance counselor. The Respondent was not involved in the meeting but apparently walked into the room where the meeting was taking place. In discussing the incident, the principal also learned that the Respondent had previously used the female student to pass his phone number to a college student interning at the school and to whom the Respondent was attracted. By letter dated August 23, 2000, the principal reprimanded the Respondent for his behavior and warned further inappropriate behavior would result in her requesting that he be suspended from teaching. In September of 2000, the Respondent was involved in two separate events. In one incident, the Respondent made inappropriate remarks to a student about the child’s mother. The child told the mother, who came to the school and complained to the principal. In the other incident, a teacher at the school reported an incident where the Respondent pushed or struck a child on the forehead. By letter dated September 22, 2000, the principal advised the Respondent of the complaints and scheduled a conference with him to discuss the situation. She advised that he could bring a representative to the conference. The conference occurred on September 25, 2000. The Respondent attended the meeting and was accompanied by a representative from the Polk County Education Association. During the meeting, the Respondent acknowledged the incidents. By letter to the Polk County School Superintendent dated September 25, 2000, the principal requested that "the next step in progressive discipline be taken" and that the Respondent be suspended without pay for five days from his teaching position. By letter dated September 28, 2000, from the Polk County Superintendent of Schools, the Respondent was advised that he would be suspended without pay for five days beginning October 2, 2000. The suspension occurred as scheduled. On or about May 16, 2001, the Respondent became involved in events with two students in separate classes. In the first incident, students in the Respondent’s classroom were completing a math exercise which required coloring answers on a score sheet. The Respondent noticed that one of the students was incorrectly coloring the sheet and made a disparaging statement to the student about his work, stating that if the instructions had been written in "clown" the student might have understood them. The Respondent and the student eventually engaged in a verbal altercation during which the Respondent used the word "stupid." The student understood the Respondent to say that the student was stupid. The Respondent asserts that he actually said the child was "acting stupid." In any case, the Respondent wrote a disciplinary referral on the student. At the change of classes, the student told a close friend who was coming into the Respondent’s classroom about the disciplinary referral. The friend asked the Respondent about the referral and the Respondent declined to answer the question, instead suggesting that after school, the friend could ask his "boyfriend" about the incident. The friend concluded that the Respondent was suggesting that the children were homosexual. The students complained to the principal about the Respondent’s statements. The principal asked the Respondent to respond to the allegations, which he did by written statement. Although the Respondent’s statement does not address use of the word "stupid" in reference to the first child, the statement acknowledges that he told the second student to get the information by asking his "boyfriend" though he denied he had intended to imply homosexuality in his remark. By letter to the Polk County School Superintendent dated May 18, 2001, the principal requested termination of the Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School System. By letter from the Polk County School Superintendent dated May 21, 2001, the Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend to the School Board that his employment be terminated. In the letter, the grounds for the termination are identified as the Respondent’s "continued unprofessional and inappropriate behavior with students including embarrassing and disparaging remarks." By letter from the Polk County School Superintendent dated June 14, 2001, the Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation that his employment would be suspended pending an administrative hearing. Based on the continuing pattern of unprofessional behavior towards students, parents and other teachers, the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished to the extent that the Crystal Lake Middle School principal does not want the Respondent to return as a teacher at her school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Polk County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Thomas D. Lindemann as a teacher at Crystal Lake Middle School. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _______________________________ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2001. Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jim Thornhill, Superintendent Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact William Burnett Washington's primary residence is 106 Westwind Court, Sanford, Florida. Mr. Washington and his wife, Betty Washington, have jointly owned the house at 106 Westwind Court house for 10 years. On a highly infrequent basis, Mr. Washington spends the night at 2020 Old Lake Mary Road, Sanford, Florida. This is the primary residence of Mr. Washington's brother, who is normally the sole occupant of the house. The Westwind Court house is occupied by Mr. Washington, Mrs. Washington, and their children, Shawn Washington, aged 16 years, and Niki, aged 14 years. Apart from infrequent overnight visits with friends, the Westwind Court home is the exclusive residence of Shawn and Niki. The Westwind Court house is served by the Seminole High School attendance zone. The Old Lake Mary Road house is served by the Lake Mary High School attendance zone. At the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, Shawn and Niki were attending Lake Mary High School. By letter dated September 21, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his children were enrolled in Lake Mary High School on the basis of false information. The letter explained that they were being administratively withdrawn from Lake Mary High School and administratively enrolled at Seminole High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Seminole County, Florida enter a Final Order confirming the enrollment of Shawn and Niki Washington in Seminole High School. ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 22nd day of February. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5651 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1: adopted except that Petitioner primarily resides at 106 Westwind Court. Even if he were to reside primarily at 2020 Old Lake Mary Road, however, the result would be the same because the children primarily reside with their mother. 2-3: adopted. 4: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. The children primarily reside with their mother. 5: adopted. 6-9: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. 10: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 135 Wall St. Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32801 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 Robert W. Hughes Superintendent The School Board of Seminole County, Florida 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32772 Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a grounds custodian based upon his absence from work without approved leave.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Lake Mary High School is a school within Petitioner's district. The School Board employs custodial staff to maintain the facilities and grounds of the schools within the district. Respondent was first employed by the School Board as a custodian in 1999 or 2000. Most recently, Respondent was "reappointed" for the 2002-03 school year under a 12-month contract. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the Official Agreement Between the Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction Association, Inc. (NIPSCO) and the School Board of Seminole County, most recently amended on August 6, 2002 [hereafter "NIPSCO Agreement"]. Among other things, the NIPSCO Agreement specifies the types of leave available to employees such as Respondent as well as the consequences for being absent from work without approved leave. Respondent was the custodian or groundskeeper responsible for maintaining the exterior grounds of Lake Mary High School, including the parking lots and the athletic fields. Respondent's immediate supervisor was Scott Underwood, the Assistant Principal at Lake Mary High School. Mr. Underwood's supervisor was Boyd Karns, Jr., the principal at Lake Mary High School. As the principal, Mr. Karns is ultimately responsible for the supervision of the personnel at Lake Mary High School. On or about August 1, 2002, Respondent requested vacation/annual leave for the period of August 19 through 30, 2002. The request was made to Mr. Underwood. Mr. Underwood initially discouraged Respondent from taking vacation on those dates because they were close to the start of the school year and the school grounds needed to look good for upcoming events such as the "open house" which marked the beginning of the school year. The athletic fields also needed to be prepared for upcoming sports events. As the school's groundskeeper, Respondent was primarily responsible for the condition of the school's exterior grounds. Respondent insisted on taking vacation on those dates and, despite his initial reservations, Mr. Underwood ultimately recommended approval of Respondent's request for vacation leave. Mr. Karns approved that recommendation. On or about August 22, 2002, while he was on vacation leave, Respondent submitted a written request for additional leave for the period of September 3 through September 19, 2002. He requested personal leave without pay for that period. The reason given by Respondent for his request for additional leave was that he wanted to help his sister open her business which was located in another state, although that may not have been the "real" reason for the request. If that additional leave had been granted, it would have resulted in Respondent being on leave for a period of five weeks -- August 19 through September 19, 2002 -- and the school being without its groundskeeper for that same period. That absence would have created a hardship for the school because Respondent was primarily responsible for the condition of the school grounds and that period coincided with the beginning of the school year when it was especially important that the school grounds look good. On August 23, 2002, Mr. Underwood spoke to Respondent by telephone about his request for additional leave. Mr. Underwood told Respondent that he was recommending that the request be denied for the reasons noted in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Karns concurred in that recommendation and Respondent's request for the personal leave without pay was denied. During the August 23, 2002, telephone conversation, Mr. Underwood expressly told Respondent that he was expected to return to work on Tuesday, September 3, 2002, since his approved vacation leave ended on Friday, August 30, 2002, and Monday, September 2, 2002, was Labor Day. Respondent did not appear for work on September 3, 2002, or any point thereafter. He did not contact Mr. Underwood or Mr. Karns on September 3, 2002, or at any point thereafter regarding his absence. Based upon Respondent's absence from work on September 3, 2002, without authorization and in violation of Mr. Underwood's direction to him on August 23, 2002, Mr. Karns recommended to the Superintendent of the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. By letter dated September 5, 2002, the Superintendent informed Respondent that he was recommending that the School Board immediately suspend Respondent without pay and that the School Board thereafter terminate Respondent's employment. The letter informed Respondent of his right to appear at the School Board meeting where the suspension recommendation would be considered as well as his right to request an administrative hearing on the recommended termination. The School Board considered the matter at its meeting on September 10, 2002. The School Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and suspended Respondent without pay effective September 11, 2002. The record does not reflect whether Respondent appeared at the School Board meeting to contest the suspension. On September 25, 2002, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing "with regard to the recommendation for termination of [his] employment." As a result of that hearing request, Respondent's employment status remained (and still is) suspended without pay. The record does not include any evidence of prior disciplinary action taken against Respondent by the School Board. Respondent was provided due notice of the time, date, and location of the final hearing in this case, but he failed to appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 17th day of April, 2003.
