The Issue Whether the Petitioner established just cause for the termination of Respondent’s employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the state entity designated to operate, control, and maintain the public school system. The School Board’s power includes the authority to enter into labor contracts and to terminate educational support personnel. Ms. Stevenson began working for the School District in 2003 as a school bus assistant, and eventually became a school bus driver in August 2004. A review of Ms. Stevenson’s performance assessments show that she was a good employee for the time period leading up to the incidents that are the subject of this hearing. For example, Ms. Stevenson’s Performance Assessment conducted for the July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, states that: Ms. Stevenson shows great leadership and pays great attention to detail. She shows respect towards her students, her school and her fellow employees. Ms. Stevenson is always in uniform and shows great professionalism both on and off the clock. Ms. Stevenson is very passionate about her work and takes great pride in doing a great job. It is a pleasure and honor working with Ms. Stevenson. The incidents that are subject of this final hearing occurred during the following school year for 2013-2014. On April 25, 2014, Ms. Stevenson was driving her school bus route, returning the students to their homes. Shortly after beginning the bus route, Ms. Stevenson began to feel sharp pains in her chest. Ms. Stevenson made her first bus stop, and then radioed the School District’s bus dispatch for help. She had stopped the bus in a safe location and was told to wait for Emergency Management Services (EMS) paramedics. Ms. Beatrice Aney, an assistant supervisor at the School District’s Leonard Transportation Compound (bus depot), was notified about Ms. Stevenson’s call. EMS was contacted, and the School District sent another bus to finish the route, and Ms. Aney to assist. The paramedics arrived at the scene and began to evaluate Ms. Stevenson’s condition. Near that same time, Ms. Aney arrived and boarded the school bus in order to watch the children, as the paramedics helped Ms. Stevenson. The paramedics determined that Ms. Stevenson needed to be transported to the local hospital for further evaluation. Ms. Stevenson was reluctant to leave the bus in the ambulance, and expressed her concern about being able to retrieve her car keys and pick her child up from daycare on time. Ms. Stevenson believed that the paramedics had spoken with Ms. Aney, and that Ms. Aney had promised that Ms. Stevenson would be picked up from the hospital. In the confusion of the bus, Ms. Aney did not hear or make any promise to Ms. Stevenson about transporting Ms. Stevenson from the hospital. At approximately 3:45 p.m., Ms. Stevenson was admitted into the hospital. She was diagnosed as having a panic attack, and was administered Xanex for anxiety. According to the hospital record and Ms. Stevenson’s testimony, she was released from the hospital at approximately 5:15 p.m. After Ms. Stevenson was transported to the hospital, Ms. Aney returned to the bus depot. Another school bus had been dispatched and finished Ms. Stevenson’s school bus route. Following her discharge from the hospital, Ms. Stevenson called the bus depot seeking a ride from the hospital back to the depot. Ms. Luvenia Brown answered the phone. The bus dispatch office was described as a busy place, and Ms. Aney was working with the many different driver requests. At the time Ms. Stevenson called, Ms. Aney was sitting across from Ms. Brown, who answered the phone. Ms. Brown, holding the phone receiver with Ms. Stevenson on the line, asked Ms. Aney about transporting Ms. Stevenson from the hospital. Ms. Aney stated that she did not have anyone who could pick up Ms. Stevenson at that moment. Ms. Stevenson overhearing the conversation between Ms. Brown and Ms. Aney stated “f**k it, she would walk,” and then hung up. Unfortunately, in Ms. Stevenson’s anger, she did not speak with either Ms. Aney or Ms. Brown before hanging up the phone. Had Ms. Stevenson waited a moment, she would have learned that Ms. Aney was going to drive to the hospital to pick up Ms. Stevenson. Ms. Aney’s statement that she did not have anyone who could transport Ms. Stevenson related to the fact that she did not have an available driver. Ms. Stevenson left the hospital angry, and began walking what would have been approximately a six-mile trip from the hospital. As she was walking, Ms. Stevenson was seen by Ms. Niurka Diaz, a fellow school bus driver who recognized Ms. Stevenson. Ms. Diaz had heard about Ms. Stevenson’s illness on the bus radio, and had already completed her school bus route. Ms. Diaz stopped her bus, and offered Ms. Stevenson a ride. At this point, Ms. Stevenson had walked approximately four-tenths of a mile from the hospital. While Ms. Stevenson was enroute to the bus depot, Ms. Aney had left for the hospital in order to transport Ms. Stevenson. Ms. Stevenson arrived at the school bus depot angry, and she walked into the dispatch office. Upon entering the office, Ms. Stevenson began a prolonged, profane tirade stating, in essence, that her co-workers did not care what happened to her, and then threatening “where the f**k is Beatrice? I am going to beat her a**.” During Ms. Stevenson’s outburst, she grabbed at papers on the wall and crumpled them. Within a few minutes, Ms. Stevenson exited the dispatch office and then entered the bus driver lounge. She continued to yell profanities in the hallway and doorway of the bus driver lounge. One of the drivers, Ms. Tomeika Harris, Ms. Stevenson’s friend, attempted to find out what was wrong. Ms. Harris reached for Ms. Stevenson’s arm. The video and testimony show that Ms. Stevenson flailed her right arm upward in order to throw off Ms. Harris’ hand. Consequently, when Ms. Harris’ hand was thrown off Ms. Stevenson’s arm, Ms. Harris’ cell phone was damaged. At the time Ms. Stevenson reacted, she was so angry that she did not recognize that it was Ms. Harris, her friend, who had reached to touch her. Subsequently, Ms. Stevenson learned that she had damaged Ms. Harris’ cell phone, and has since replaced it. Ms. Stevenson exited the bus driver lounge into the parking lot. Ms. Black, another school bus driver and friend of Ms. Stevenson, saw her in the parking lot. Ms. Stevenson continued a profane tirade that no one cared about her, and how she had been left at the hospital. Ms. Black attempted to calm her friend down, and Ms. Stevenson subsequently left the bus depot in order to pick up her daughter from daycare. During Ms. Stevenson’s outburst, Ms. Aney was at the hospital looking for Ms. Stevenson. When she could not find Ms. Stevenson, Ms. Aney called the dispatch office and spoke with Ms. Karen Lane. Ms. Lane told Ms. Aney that Ms. Stevenson was at the bus depot and that Ms. Aney needed to return immediately. By the time that Ms. Aney returned, approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, Ms. Stevenson had already left the premises. The School District did not contact any law enforcement agency concerning Ms. Stevenson’s outburst and threats made against Ms. Aney on April 25, 2014. The School District began an investigation into Ms. Stevenson’s conduct at the school bus depot. The investigator, Mr. Andrew Brown, learned from one of Ms. Stevenson’s supervisors that Ms. Stevenson had been involved in a prior incident on January 30, 2014. Mr. Brown was provided a video taken on the bus driven by Ms. Stevenson on January 30, 2014. This January 30, 2014, video, with its audio, shows Ms. Stevenson losing her temper and verbally berating a third-grader because Ms. Stevenson perceived that the third-grader had been disrespectful to her. Further, the video shows Ms. Stevenson yelling at all of the students and warning them about being disrespectful to her. Following her verbal tirade, Ms. Stevenson turned down the bus radio and called the school bus dispatch on her cell phone while driving the bus. Ms. Stevenson falsely reported that she had tried to call the dispatch on her bus radio, and that she wanted dispatch to inform the school that the identified student had been disrespectful to her and that she would be speaking to the student’s mother. Finally, the video shows that at the student’s stop, Ms. Stevenson informed the student’s mother that the child had been disrespectful, rolling her eyes and had “jumped at her.” The video did not support Ms. Stevenson’s characterization of the third-grader’s actions as “jump[ing] at her.” After a parent complaint, the School District reviewed the video and suspended Ms. Stevenson as a school bus driver for three days. Ms. Stevenson’s evaluation indicated that Ms. Stevenson was suspended for using the cell phone while driving. Ms. Stevenson testified that her suspension also was the result of her behavior on the bus in addition to the cell phone use. Certainly, the School District in suspending Ms. Stevenson took into account her inexcusable verbal berating of a third grader on the bus when it suspended her. The fact that Ms. Stevenson used a cell phone while driving the school bus could only have been learned by watching the video. As stated earlier, the video shows Ms. Stevenson’s inappropriate behavior directed to the student, and her inappropriate driving while talking on the cell phone. Consequently, the undersigned finds that the School District was aware of Ms. Stevenson’s outburst on the school bus on January 30, 2014, when it suspended her for three days. Finally, it is agreed by the parties that Ms. Stevenson was directed by her supervisor, after the January 30, 2014, incident, to act courteously and cooperatively in the future. Ms. Stevenson’s unrebutted testimony shows that in 2013 and 2014 she was a victim of domestic violence, and had in place a domestic violence injunction against her husband. Ms. Stevenson explained that her difficult situation spilled over into her work life causing her anger and anxiety. Prior to her suspension, Ms. Stevenson sought help with Employee Assistance Program counseling concerning her anxiety. However, she has not been able to consistently continue with the counseling based on financial difficulties. During this past school year, Ms. Stevenson has driven a bus for a private transportation company that provides bus services for charter schools without any further incident. She has expressed remorse for her actions, and stated a desire to return as a Lee County School District school bus driver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The School Board established “just cause” for disciplining Ms. Stevenson’s employment based on the finding that she is guilty of “misconduct in office,” for violating article 7.13, and School Board Policies 2.02, 4.09, and 5.02; Ms. Stevenson be suspended without pay from July 1, 2014 until the beginning of the January 2015 term; and As a condition of continued employment, Ms. Stevenson successfully complete an Employee Assistance Program concerning anger and stress management, and successfully complete training concerning effective communication. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 29th day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent, Patricia Banks', employment as a school bus operator based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. Since October 31, 2001, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus operator. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County and the School Board (the "SPALC Agreement"). In September 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive a morning route and an afternoon route. Her morning route ended at about 10:00 a.m., and her afternoon route commenced at about 1:30 p.m. Respondent's daughter, India Miller, also worked as a school bus operator for the School Board. On September 20, 2004, between her morning and afternoon routes, Respondent drove her daughter to the Wal-Mart store on Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers. Ms. Miller's car was not running, and she was in the process of moving into a new residence. She had asked Respondent to take her to Wal-Mart to purchase cleaning supplies and to look into buying a new computer. Respondent and Ms. Miller were wearing their School Board bus driver uniforms. Respondent parked her car in front of the store, but near the garden department, which is on the side of the building along with the automotive department. Respondent and Ms. Miller entered the building through the front or "general merchandise" ("GM") entrance. Respondent and Ms. Miller proceeded to the electronics department to look at computers. They were assisted by David Heady, a sales associate in the electronics department. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent asked him several questions about the functionality of a certain computer, an eMachines desktop model priced at $698.00. Each woman said she wanted one of the computers, but Mr. Heady had only one of them on the floor. He put that one in a shopping cart for Respondent, then proceeded to the storeroom to get a second computer for Ms. Miller. When he returned with the second computer, about three minutes later, Mr. Heady noticed that Ms. Miller and the first computer were gone. Respondent told him that Ms. Miller had taken the computer to the front of the store to check out. This disturbed Mr. Heady because it is Wal-Mart's policy that all computers should be paid for in the electronics department. Mr. Heady's suspicions were also somewhat aroused by the fact that it was Ms. Miller who took the first computer out of his department, when it was Respondent who had asked for it. According to Mr. Heady, Respondent started toward the front of the store with the second computer, but Mr. Heady stopped her and told her she had to pay for it in the electronics department. Respondent paid cash for the computer, a total of $739.88, then left the electronics department. Mr. Heady then called the loss prevention office and spoke with loss prevention officer, Bernard "Bo" Lee, to inform him that a computer that had not been paid for had been removed from the electronics department. He testified that he checked out Respondent before alerting loss prevention of the missing computer because he did not want a confrontation with Respondent. Mr. Heady also informed his supervisor in the electronics department, Terrell Russ, about the missing computer. Mr. Russ, in turn, made his own call to loss prevention and spoke with another loss prevention officer, Mickey Holman. Respondent testified that she and her daughter went into the electronics department because her daughter wanted a new computer. Respondent stated that she knows very little about computers and that it was Ms. Miller who was asking technical questions of Mr. Heady. Respondent did ask if Mr. Heady had a second computer because she was interested in placing one on layaway for her sons. Respondent testified that there was no computer on the floor of the electronics department. When her daughter told Mr. Heady she wanted to buy the model under discussion, he had to retrieve it from the storeroom. Respondent testified that she waited for Mr. Heady to bring the computer while Ms. Miller shopped for her cleaning supplies. Mr. Heady returned with the computer and told Respondent that she would have to pay for the computer before she could take it out of the electronics department. Respondent called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and told her that she had to come back to the electronics department to pay for the computer. Respondent also asked Ms. Miller if she could afford to lend her the money to place a computer on layaway. Ms. Miller responded that she would not know until she completed her purchases. Respondent could not recall whether Ms. Miller told her that she was coming back to purchase the computer. Respondent left the electronics department and walked to the in-store McDonalds to eat lunch. Finding the McDonalds too crowded, she went outside to smoke a cigarette. The one piece of documentary evidence available at the hearing was the Wal-Mart receipt for the purchase of the computer. The receipt indicates that the computer was purchased with cash in the electronics department, though it does not establish whether it was Respondent or Ms. Miller who made the purchase. Respondent's testimony agrees with that of Mr. Heady on one point: Ms. Miller left the electronics department and was separated from Respondent for at least several minutes. Messrs. Lee, Holman, and Russ all observed Ms. Miller during the time she was separated from Respondent. Mr. Lee testified that he was patrolling the floors of Wal-Mart to watch for shoplifters. He noticed three black women, including Ms. Miller and two unidentified women, placing an eMachines computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Lee stated that the eMachines computers were a "hot item," and he, therefore, paid special attention when customers placed them in shopping carts. Though he had seen Respondent with the other women in the electronics department, Mr. Lee did not see her touch the computer. Mr. Lee stated that he followed Ms. Miller to the front of the store. Respondent was still in the electronics department. Mr. Lee observed Ms. Miller push the cart holding the computer to the line of cash registers, through the line, past the greeter who checked her receipt, and out the GM entrance. Though he did not specifically observe Ms. Miller pay for the computer at the front registers, Mr. Lee assumed that it had been paid for because the greeter allowed her to leave the store without incident. From just inside the GM doors, Mr. Lee watched Ms. Miller walk to a car in the front parking lot. Mr. Lee did not see Ms. Miller load the computer into the car, but he did observe her re-enter the store a few minutes later, without the computer, but carrying a Wal-Mart receipt. He followed Ms. Miller to the toy department, where she met Respondent and the two unidentified women standing near a shopping cart containing a second eMachines computer. Mr. Holman testified that after being radioed by Mr. Russ that a computer had been taken from the electronics department by one of two women in school bus driver uniforms, he began searching the store. He observed Ms. Miller go through the checkout area and past the greeter, who signaled that Ms. Miller had a receipt for her computer. Mr. Holman radioed to the electronics department and told them there was no problem, that the woman had paid for the computer. The person in electronics who answered told Mr. Holman that there was a second computer. Mr. Holman went to look for the second computer while Mr. Lee maintained his surveillance on Ms. Miller. Mr. Holman found the missing computer sitting in an unattended shopping cart in the toy department. After a minute or two, he saw Respondent approach the cart. Then, two other women joined her, and they began talking. Mr. Holman stated that Respondent approached the cart several times, but did not actually touch or take hold of it. After a few minutes, Ms. Miller approached the group of three women. Mr. Lee followed her and maintained his surveillance apart from Mr. Holman. Both loss prevention officers were out of earshot of the four women. Mr. Lee recalled that Ms. Miller handed the receipt to Respondent at that point, though they later passed it back and forth more than once. After some conversation, the two unidentified women walked away. Ms. Miller began pushing the cart containing the computer toward the automotive department called the "TLE" for "Tire and Lube Express." Respondent walked in front of the cart. Mr. Lee noted that exiting through the TLE in the rear of the store would require Respondent and Ms. Miller to walk around the outside of the store to reach the front parking lot and that exiting through the GM entrance would be much more convenient. Mr. Lee testified that this behavior alone would have aroused his suspicions. The women guided the cart out through the TLE entrance. Ms. Miller pushed the cart, and Respondent lifted the front of the cart over the metal strip in the doorway. The electronic article surveillance ("EAS") system did not sound an alarm. Mr. Lee testified that it is not unusual for the EAS system not to sound, and he attached no significance to its silence. After the women were outside the store, Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman approached and asked them to return to the store. Ms. Miller told the men they had scared her. She said, "I pissed myself [sic]." Ms. Miller also told Mr. Lee that she had a receipt for a computer. Mr. Lee found it significant that she said "a computer," rather than "this computer." Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman escorted the women to the loss prevention office. Ms. Miller, ultimately, admitted to stealing the computer. Respondent denied doing anything wrong and was visibly upset when she was detained. In the loss prevention office, Respondent called her employer on her cell phone to arrange for someone to cover her afternoon bus route. None of the Wal-Mart employees present in the loss prevention office could recall Respondent's making any statement that could be construed as incriminating. The local police arrived, and both women were arrested. Ms. Miller subsequently resigned her employment with the School Board. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's criminal case had not been resolved. Again, Respondent told a different story. While she was smoking her cigarette outside, Respondent began to worry about finishing the shopping in time to drive her afternoon bus route. She called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and asked how much longer she would be in the store. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she was paying for her merchandise and asked Respondent whether she had seen her in-laws in the store. Respondent said that she had not seen them and asked where they were. Ms. Miller told her that she last saw them in the toy department. Respondent finished her cigarette, then walked back into Wal-Mart. She walked to the toy department and found her relatives where Ms. Miller had last seen them. Respondent noted that they had a computer in a shopping cart. One of the in-laws told her that it was Ms. Miller's computer, and they were waiting there for Ms. Miller to return. Ms. Miller arrived, took control of the shopping cart, and asked Respondent if she was ready to go. Respondent saw a Wal-Mart receipt in her daughter's hand. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she needed to buy something in the automotive department. Ms. Miller pushed the cart toward the rear of the store, where the TLE was located. When they reached the TLE, Ms. Miller began asking questions of the sales associate. Respondent interrupted her, saying they had to leave in order to make their afternoon bus routes. Ms. Miller pushed the cart out the TLE entrance, and they were approached by Messrs. Holman and Lee, who told them they needed to come back inside. Ms. Miller said, "Oh, shit. You're gonna make me piss on myself." Respondent wondered why Ms. Miller was reacting so strongly, if she had done nothing wrong. Respondent was adamant that she had no idea Ms. Miller was attempting to steal a computer. Respondent believed Ms. Miller had paid for the computer. Respondent testified that she and Ms. Miller had both worked for Wal-Mart in the past, and both knew that a customer is not allowed to take a computer from the electronics department without paying for it. Ms. Miller apparently had a receipt for the computer. Respondent testified that it never crossed her mind that Ms. Miller would steal a computer; that she believed her daughter "had better sense than that." Based upon the testimony of all the witnesses, including the deposition testimony of Messrs. Lee and Holman, and the documentary evidence, it is found that the School Board did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent stole a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence certainly demonstrated that Respondent's daughter, Ms. Miller, attempted to steal a computer. However, even if the testimony of the School Board's witnesses were accepted in its entirety, no witness definitively linked Respondent to the computer in such a way as to demonstrate her guilty knowledge that it was being stolen. The testimony of Mr. Holman cannot be credited. After detaining Respondent and Ms. Miller, Mr. Holman prepared a written report attesting that he observed Ms. Miller purchase a computer in the electronics department and take it to her car, while Respondent selected another computer, put it in a shopping cart, and took it to the toy department. In his pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Holman testified that he saw Ms. Miller select and pay for a computer in the electronics department. During cross-examination during the final hearing, Mr. Holman conceded that he witnessed none of these events. Mr. Holman's efforts to explain his misleading statements were unconvincing. He essentially stated that his reporting practice was to write a first-person narrative commingling hearsay reports from other witnesses with his own personal observations. Thus, when Mr. Holman wrote, "I observed a female (India Miller) purchase a desktop PC in the electronics [department]," he actually meant that Mr. Lee observed the purchase and later told Mr. Holman about it. Mr. Holman's testimony must be disregarded because the undersigned cannot reliably distinguish between Mr. Holman's first-hand observations and the hearsay statements that he adopted as his own. The testimony of the remaining witnesses conflicted on key points. The evidence established that Mr. Heady was confused as to the time of day during which the relevant events occurred. Mr. Heady had no recollection of the two unidentified black women whom Mr. Lee stated were with Respondent and Ms. Miller in the electronics department. Mr. Lee stated that he saw Ms. Miller and the two unidentified women put a computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Heady testified that he placed the computers in the shopping carts. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent paid for the first computer. However, he also testified that it was Respondent who asked him technical questions about the computer's capabilities. Respondent credibly testified that she is ignorant about computers and that it was her daughter who was asking Mr. Heady the technical questions. It is likely that Mr. Heady's recollection was confused and that it was Ms. Miller who paid for the first computer. Respondent's narrative of the relevant events was not without its inconsistencies, but the burden was not on Respondent to establish her innocence. Respondent's narrative was credible as to the key point, that she did not know her daughter was attempting to steal a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence presented by the School Board was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent ever gave any indication, through her words or her actions, that she knew Ms. Miller had not paid for the computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Termination of Employment, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding her back pay and benefits retroactive to December 16, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 15th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, who swung a belt at or near a student while disciplining the student for unacceptable behavior on a school bus, gave Petitioner——her employer, the district school board——just cause to dismiss Respondent from her position as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent Rosa Harrell ("Harrell") as a bus driver, a position she has held since 1998. To date, her disciplinary record as a District employee is clear. The events in dispute occurred on the afternoon of April 27, 2016, as Harrell drove students home from Christa McAuliffe Middle School. During the run, Harrell noticed that a student was eating on the bus, which is specifically described as "unacceptable behavior" on page 31 of the District's School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook (the "Handbook"), as is drinking any beverage on the bus. State law mandates that a "school bus driver shall require order and good behavior by all students being transported on school buses." § 1006.10(1), Fla. Stat. To this end, drivers are invested with "the authority and responsibility to control students during the time students are on the school bus . . . ." § 1012.45(2), Fla. Stat. The Handbook likewise requires that drivers "maintain order and appropriate student behavior while on the school bus at all times." Handbook, at 28.1/ Faced with unacceptable student behavior, which drivers have a duty to subdue, Harrell demanded that the student or students bring her their "crackers" and "soda too," immediately. At the time Harrell gave this order, the bus was stopped, probably at a red light. The student(s) did not promptly comply, and Harrell repeated the command, urging them, multiple times, to "come on!" The student(s) still failed to obey, and after about a half-minute, Harrell stepped on the gas pedal, causing the bus to accelerate——presumably because the light had turned green. Finally, a student came forward and handed Harrell some food, which she tossed out the driver's open window. The student then returned to his seat. Harrell, driving, again ordered the student who had been seen drinking to "bring [the soda] here." Eventually a boy came forward and handed Harrell a soda can, which she threw out the window. This boy tattled on another student, M.M., who had been eating and drinking on the bus, too. There is no dispute that M.M., a sixth-grader at the time, engaged in this unacceptable behavior. The informant suggested that Harrell slam on the brakes and deal with M.M. right away, but Harrell indicated that she would take care of M.M. at the next stop. True to her word, after coming to a complete stop at the next light, Harrell engaged the parking brake, unstrapped her seat belt, and headed to the rear of the bus to confront M.M. As she walked back, one of the students removed his cloth belt, as others shouted, "Take it!" Harrell said to M.M., "You drinking on the bus with your big ol' self." She took the belt when it was offered to her. The District argues that Harrell meant to embarrass M.M. by drawing attention to his size, and M.M. testified that the driver's remark about his "big ol' self" had made him feel uncomfortable. The undersigned rejects the argument, finding instead that Harrell in fact used the slangy adjective "big ol'" not to tease the student about his weight,2/ but to intensify the reference to M.M.'s "self." She was not calling him fat; she was calling him self-important. The approximate meaning of her statement, in other words, was: You think you're such a big shot, drinking on the bus. The undersigned is not convinced that this comment caused M.M. the discomfort he currently claims to have experienced.3/ When Harrell reached M.M., who was sitting by himself on the bench seat, she took his hand, raised his arm, and swung the belt in M.M.'s direction, striking the side of the seat five times. The parties sharply dispute whether Harrell intended to hit M.M. with the belt, and also whether she did so, either on purpose or by accident. Having considered all of the evidence, including the videos, the undersigned finds that, most likely, Harrell did not intend to strike M.M. The event took place in an atmosphere of boisterous laughter, suggesting to the undersigned that the students did not regard Harrell as a genuine threat to M.M. The student himself did not react as though he were in fear of being struck, as he continued to hold up and view his cellphone throughout the incident. Finally, had Harrell intended to hit M.M. with the belt, she almost certainly would have landed solid blows, for he was a sitting duck at close range. Such blows likely would be plain to see on the available videos. But the videos in evidence do not unambiguously show the belt striking the student, giving additional grounds for doubting that Harrell intended to hit M.M. The best description the undersigned can give for Harrell's conduct during the "whupping" of M.M. is that it was one part pantomime, one part burlesque, and one part horseplay, a kind of show whose purpose was to discipline M.M., to be sure, but with parodic violence, not with real violence, discharging her duty to maintain acceptable student behavior while winking, metaphorically, at the students. Harrell did not act, the undersigned believes, with malice or cruelty or the intent to cause M.M. harm. She intended to hit the seat in close enough proximity to M.M. that it would look like she was "whupping" the student. Just because Harrell did not intend to hit M.M. with the belt, however, does not mean that she missed him when she swung in his direction. M.M. testified that Harrell caught him on the leg. The video evidence is inconclusive but does not clearly contradict M.M.'s testimony. Ultimately, based on the totality of the evidence, including the videos, the undersigned cannot find without hesitation that Harrell struck M.M. with the belt. While evidence of such contact is less than clear and convincing, a preponderance of the evidence persuades the undersigned that the belt, more likely than not, clipped M.M. on one of its passes. Fortunately for all concerned, M.M. was not injured. Although Harrell's intentions were good, or at least not bad, her judgment in this instance was very poor. M.M.'s hands were not clean, of course, because he had engaged in unacceptable student conduct, but a driver should not swing a belt at a student——even without the intent to impose actual corporal punishment——just for eating on the bus. Harrell's actions created an indefensible risk of accidental harm that outweighed all reasonable disciplinary justifications. Thus, even without clear and convincing proof that Harrell hit a student, the District has convinced the undersigned to determine, without hesitation, that Harrell engaged in misconduct affecting the health, safety, or welfare of M.M., in contravention of a written District policy. Had Harrell's actions clearly constituted a real and immediate danger to the District, the District would have had a factual basis not to administer progressive discipline, which is otherwise generally a requirement under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Her actions, however, immediately affected, not the District as a whole, but only one person, M.M., and even he was not placed in real and immediate danger. To explain, while Harrell unreasonably exposed M.M. to a risk of accidental harm, which is just cause for disciplinary action, she did not intend to hurt him: harm was foreseeable, but not imminent. If Harrell had intended to cause injury (which she did not), then harm would have been, not only foreseeable, but nearly inevitable. In that hypothetical case, her conduct would have constituted an immediate danger to M.M. In the event, it did not. Nor did Harrell's actions constitute a clearly flagrant and purposeful violation of any District policies or rules, which ultimate fact, were it true, would have supplied an alternative basis for skipping progressive discipline. A veteran driver with a previously spotless disciplinary record, Harrell suffered a momentary lapse of judgment and, in a misguided effort to discipline a student for engaging in unacceptable behavior, committed a disciplinable offense herself. Her conduct was ill-advised but not obviously and willfully contumacious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order finding Harrell guilty of misconduct in office and imposing the following penalties therefor: (a) verbal reprimand; (b) written reprimand; and (c) 30-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by not hiring the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's Policies 3.10 and 3.11 set forth conditions of employment and requirements for pre-employment medical examinations which must be complied with by "all applicants who are recommended for employment" by the Respondent School Board. The Petitioner was initially employed by the Palm Beach County School Board as a probationary bus driver effective November 3, 1981. On August 18, 1986, the Petitioner submitted his resignation from that position effective June 11, 1986. On September 16, 1988, the Petitioner submitted a new application for employment with the Respondent in the position of school bus driver. Pursuant to School Board policy, the Petitioner was referred to the Occupational Health Clinic for his pre-employment physical examination. The Respondent's application process, which is governed by School Board Policies 3.10 and 3.11, requires that all applicants for employment sign a form which informs the applicants of the employment practice. The information sheet, which the Petitioner executed, has a section wherein the applicants acknowledge that they "must successfully pass health screening administered by the District's Occupational Health Clinic" to be considered for employment. The Manager of the Respondent's Occupational Health Clinic is Ms. Linda Cherryholmes-Perkins. She has held that position since January of 1987. Ms. Cherryholmes-Perkins has a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, a Master's Degree in Nursing, and is licensed as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. As Manager of the Occupational Health Clinic, Ms. Cherryholmes-Perkins oversees the pre-employment process, which all applicants for full-time employment must satisfy. During the Petitioner's pre-employment physical examination, he was tested to insure that he met both the Florida Department of Education Standards and the Respondent's Bus Driver Standards. The Respondent's Bus Driver Standards have been approved by the Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, School Transportation Management Section. An applicant who fails to meet both the Florida Departinent of Education Standards and the Respondent's Bus Driver Standards is ineligible to drive a school bus for the Respondent. The Petitioner knew he had to satisfactorily complete the pre- employment process to be eligible for employment. When the Petitioner was examined in connection with his 1988 application for employment, he was found to be suffering from uncontrolled diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, and gross or morbid obesity. Because the Petitioner had not been previously diagnosed as having diabetes, he was assigned to and was allowed to perform twenty-one hours of probationary services before the Respondent discovered that the Petitioner was not qualified to be a school bus driver. When it was discovered that the Petitioner did not meet the school bus driver requirements, he was placed in a "medical hold" status by the Occupational Health Clinic. The "medical hold" status was for thirty days. During the "medical hold" period the Petitioner was given an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the State of Florida Standards and with the Respondent's Bus Driver Standards. The Respondent accommodated the Petitioner in this regard by providing him with free follow-up testing during the "medical hold" period. At the end of the "medical hold" period, the Petitioner still failed to meet the State and School Board employment standards. During that period the Petitioner also failed to follow his physician's medical prescription. At the conclusion of the "medical hold" period the Petitioner was given a medical denial for the position of school bus driver. The primary reason for the medical denial was the Petitioner's diabetes, which was still uncontrolled. Secondary reasons were the additional health complications resulting from the Petitioner's hypertension and obesity. As a result of the uncontrolled diabetes alone, it was unsafe for the Petitioner to drive a school bus, because patients with that condition are at risk of having cognitive problems. The Petitioner's other problems made it even more unsafe for him to drive a school bus because patients with uncontrolled hypertension are at greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and similar cardiovascular incidents, and the Petitioner's obesity caused him to have a limited range of motion in his spine.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petition For Relief and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon, County, Florida, this 26th day of July, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 Divsion of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael L. Cohen, Esquire Barristers Building 1615 Forum Place, Suite 1-B West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Hazel L. Lucas, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3970 RCA Boulevard, Suite 7010 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Mr. Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Florida Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Ms. Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue is whether the Lee County School Board may terminate Respondent's employment as a school bus driver based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. In January 2003, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school bus driver. Respondent had been in that position since April 2000. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County and the School Board (hereafter "SPALC Agreement"). On January 27, 2003, Respondent's supervisor, Joe Howard, received a note from Respondent which stated that Respondent was "going through a lot of problems (personal)" and that he "can't work today." The note was delivered to Mr. Howard's office by one of Respondent's relatives. The note did not expressly request leave and it stated that Respondent "will give [Mr. Howard] more details when [he] come[s] back to work." Respondent never contacted Mr. Howard to explain his absence, nor did Respondent report for work at any point after January 27, 2003. Mr. Howard subsequently learned that Respondent had not returned to work because he was in jail. Respondent never filled out the School Board's leave request form, nor did he get approval for his leave on January 27, 2003, or thereafter. School Board policy specifically requires requests for leave to be made and approved in advance of the period of leave. The policy has an exception for "sickness or other emergencies," but that exception is not implicated in this case. On January 29, 2003, Respondent was arrested by the Lee County Sheriff's office after he was involved in a confrontation with his girlfriend on the Mid Point bridge in Lee County. Respondent was charged with four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of aggravated battery, and one count of false imprisonment. Each of those offenses is a third-degree felony. Respondent was taken to jail after his arrest. He remained in jail through March 5, 2003. All of the charges against Respondent except the false imprisonment and one count of aggravated assault were subsequently "dropped." Respondent is currently awaiting trial on the remaining charges. Upon learning of Respondent's arrest and the nature of the allegations against him, Mr. Howard had serious concerns regarding Respondent's ability to work as a bus driver. Mr. Howard was particularly concerned that parents would be uncomfortable with Respondent transporting their children in light of Respondent's alleged failure to follow the law. Mr. Howard considers compliance with the law to be a paramount duty of a bus driver. In accordance with School Board policy and the SPALC Agreement, the School Board investigated the circumstances surrounding Respondent's absence and arrest, as well as other unrelated allegations of misconduct by Respondent. The findings of the investigation were discussed at a duly-noticed pre-determination conference held on March 6, 2003. The purpose of the pre-determination conference is to give the employee an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him or her. Respondent attended the pre-determination conference and spoke on his own behalf. Respondent confirmed that he was arrested on January 29, 2003, and that he was in jail until March 5, 2003. Respondent also provided his version of the events surrounding his arrest. On March 24, 2003, the Superintendent informed Respondent that he was suspended from his position based upon the findings of the investigation and the pre-determination conference. The suspension was retroactive to March 6, 2003, which was the first day that Respondent could have reported to work after his release from jail. Also on March 24, 2003, the School Board's director of human resources informed Respondent that there was probable cause to discipline him for his conduct and that she was recommending that Respondent be terminated from his position. Thereafter, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing. Respondent's employment contract with the School Board expired on May 29, 2003. His contract was not renewed for the 2003-04 school year as a result of a number of performance deficiencies cited in Respondent's annual assessment. Those performance deficiencies were not directly related to Respondent's arrest. Notice of this proceeding was provided to Respondent at the address he gave to the School Board at the pre- determination conference. Respondent received certified mail from the School Board at that address during the course of this proceeding. Respondent failed to appear at the final hearing despite having been given due notice of its date, time, and location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board issue a final order that terminates Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 15th day of July, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner established “just cause” to terminate Respondent's employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Moore has been a school bus driver in Seminole County since 2009. The operative facts are not in dispute. On October 24, 2012, Mr. Moore was beginning his morning school bus route. After picking up two students, Mr. Moore, at approximately 6:45 a.m., pulled into a parking lot of a local doughnut shop and parked the bus. Mr. Moore exited the bus, left the school bus door open with the motor idling. Mr. Moore returned within three minutes with a bagel and a soft-drink. All of these events were captured on video, and Mr. Moore does not dispute that this early morning breakfast stop occurred. Mr. Moore's only explanation is that he was not thinking, and had been under a lot of personal stress at the time. The School Board has a specific policy that requires a school bus driver to operate the bus with "maximum regard for the safety of students and due consideration for the protection of health of all students . . . ." School Board Policy 8.31. Moreover, a bus driver is prohibited from using the bus for personal business, and prohibited from leaving the bus' motor unnecessarily idling while in the vicinity of students. School Board Policies 8.48, and 6.22(J). In addition to the School Board Policies, the School Board bus drivers are required to follow the procedures set out in the School Bus Operations Handbook (Handbook). Seminole County Public Schools, Transportation Services, School Bus Operations Handbook, (amended July 2012). Importantly, for this case, the Handbook expressly provides that a driver shall never leave students unattended on the school bus. School Bus Operations Handbook at 247. Further, the Handbook provides that in the event a driver must leave the bus, the driver must set the parking brake and remove the bus keys from the ignition. Id. A school bus driver is then directed to keep the keys in his or her possession. Id. Finally, the Handbook clearly states that the school bus driver is not to leave the approved bus route without permission. Id. Mr. Moore received extensive training in the School Board's policies concerning the safe operation of the school bus and the School Board's expectations for its school bus drivers found in the Handbook. Mr. Moore is sincere in his testimony that he loves his job, and forthright in his admission that he made a mistake in stopping for his morning breakfast while on his bus route.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board terminate Mr. Moore's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 14th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Theresa A. Velez (Ms. Velez), violated Pinellas County School Board (School Board) Policy 4140A(9a), "Failure to perform duties of the position"; School Board Policy 4140A(23), "Failure to comply with Board policy, State law, or appropriate contractual agreement"; and Section 2.02 of the Pinellas County Schools Transportation Department Bus Driver's Handbook (Handbook), and, if so, whether a one-day suspension without pay is warranted.
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 2000, Ms. Velez became a full-time bus driver for the School Board. In the 2009-2010 school year, she was a relief driver. As a relief driver, Ms. Velez would take the routes of other bus drivers, who were off from work or sick, or when there was a bus breakdown. She was paid 85 cents more per hour than the regular drivers. On February 22, 2010, she was driving Route 622. The bus driver position for that route was vacant,1 and Ms. Velez and other relief drivers would drive the route when assigned to do so. Route 622 leaves from Clearwater Intermediate after 4:00 p.m., when the students are released from the school. Each of the buses is equipped with a video camera that records the activity on the bus during the route. On February 22, 2010, a video camera recorded the activity on the bus that Ms. Velez was driving. Ms. Velez had had problems with some of the students when she had driven Route 622 before. On February 22, 2010, she asked an assistant principal at Clearwater Intermediate to come on the bus and have some of the children change their seats because some of the children who sat in the back of the bus were mischievous.2 Ms. Velez wanted some students moved on the bus so that they would not be sitting near their friends and engaging in mischief. She told the assistant principal that she felt that some of the students were unsafe to drive. The basis for this comment was her previous experience with the bus route, when the children were hanging out the windows, opening the windows even with the air-conditioning on, and screaming. The assistant principal told Ms. Velez that she had requested a seating chart and told Ms. Velez to pull over on the grass. She did not request a seating chart from Ms. Velez. When the assistant principal came on the bus, she was carrying a sheet of paper, and Ms. Velez had a sheet of paper. Based on the assistant principal's earlier statement that she had requested a seating chart, it is inferred that she did get a seating chart. It should be noted that a seating chart would have not been necessary to accomplish Ms. Velez's request that students exchange seating. All she had to do was to identify the students who had misbehaved in the past and tell the assistant principal. The assistant principal did move some students. One student argued with the assistant principal. The assistant principal told the student to get off the bus because she was suspending him from the bus. The student essentially ignored the order, and the assistant principal did not follow-up on the disciplinary measure of suspending the student from the bus. After Ms. Velez left the school, she pulled the bus over and stopped two times because the students were eating on the bus. The students were asked to stop eating before she pulled over, but the students ignored her. One student in particular was involved in both incidents of eating on the bus, and she appeared to be egging on the driver. The last time a package of food was taken from her, the student talked back to Ms. Velez using curse words. Eating on the bus is considered a minor offense. The Pinellas County Schools' Code of Student Conduct includes special rules concerning students' conduct while riding the school bus. The rules require that students remain seated at all times and prohibit students from distracting the driver with loud conversation or noises, eating or drinking on the bus, and using obscene language or gestures. All of these rules were violated by some of the students on the bus on Route 622 on the afternoon of February 22, 2010. One of the students called Ms. Velez a bitch. One student who was seated two seats back from the bus driver had headphones and was singing loudly during most of the bus ride, frequently using profanity. Her singing was loud enough to be distracting. Other students were holding what appeared to be packages of food up so that Ms. Velez could see them through the rearview mirror. Some school officials consider that the noise level of the students on the bus was not out of the ordinary. While the noise level may be considered normal for middle-school students, it should not be tolerated. Nor should the use of profanity and the lack of respect by the students be tolerated. Ms. Velez pulled the bus over a third time. Two of the students pulled down windows on the air-conditioned bus. Ms. Velez warned the students to pull up the windows before she stopped the bus. One student did pull the window back up and then pulled it back down after the bus was stopped. The other student did not pull the window up until after the bus was stopped, and Mr. Velez had asked her several times to close the window. One of the students told Ms. Velez that another student was having an asthma attack. Ms. Velez called dispatch to see if she could get some assistance for the student who had asthma. Ms. Velez stated at the final hearing that she was unable to reach dispatch; however, the video does record a response from dispatch. It is unlikely with the amount of noise that was going on at the time of the response and Ms. Velez yelling at the students to close the windows that she heard the response. Ms. Velez claims that students were throwing nickels at her before she pulled the bus over; however, the video recording does not show any students throwing anything at her. Instead of pulling to the right side of the road the third time that she stopped, Ms. Velez pulled the bus into a left-turn lane, which was the center lane of the road. At the time, she felt that was the safest place to stop and that she could not continue to safely drive with the conditions caused by the students' behavior. She had been in the left lane of a four-lane road when she turned into the center-turn lane. She could not go to the right. However, she could have turned into parking lots that were on the left side of the road. Pulling into the center turn lane did put the safety of the students at issue because the students could not safely depart from the bus, if necessary, because there was traffic on both sides of the bus. The School Board claims that Ms. Velez left the school bus idling while she left her seat and attempted to get the students to comply with her directives. It could not be determined from the video that the bus was idling, when she stopped the bus, and there was no direct testimony from anyone present when the bus stopped that the bus was idling. While the bus was pulled in the center lane, Ms. Velez attempted to get the students to close the windows. Some of the students were shouting at Ms. Velez, using profanity. Ms. Velez called dispatch and advised that the students were out of control. Ms. Velez used her cellular telephone to contact dispatch and advised them that she was in the center lane on West Bay and that the students were out of control. She requested that the police be notified and advised that she was going to pull over to 20th Street, which is a side road off West Bay. When she stopped at 20th Street, she advised dispatch that she was southbound on 20th Street. While stopped at 20th Street, the students' behavior did not improve until the police arrived. Some of the students moved to the front of the bus, pushing and demanding to be let out. At least four of the students pushed the bus door open and left the bus. If a bus driver feels that a student is guilty of misconduct on the school bus, the driver is to make a report of misconduct, which is commonly known as a referral. The referral states: "Any misbehavior which distracts the driver is a very serious hazard to the safe operation of the bus and jeopardizes the safety of the passengers." Types of misconduct are listed on the referral and include refusal to obey driver; eating/drinking/chewing gum; too noisy; and profanity. Ms. Velez did not make any referrals as a result of the incidents on February 22, 2010. She was under the impression that some of the students had been suspended from the bus; however, none of the students had been disciplined by the school. Clips of the video were sent to the school's administration, but no action was taken against the students. Section 9.02 of Handbook provides: 9.02 DRIVER GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING STUDENTS Drivers are required by Florida Statute and Rules of the State Board of Education to maintain order and safe behavior by the students on the school bus. Rules for student conduct on the school buses are set forth in the School Board's Student Code of Conduct. Assign seating for the entire bus. Assigning seats for all riders can help a driver learn student names more rapidly, set a tone of behavioral control, and turn student seating into a familiar routing rather than a daily free-for-all. At the start of the year, create a seating chart for the bus. The suggested procedure for arranging seating is to load window to aisle or back to front according to stops. An accurate seating chart is required to be maintained at all times. A copy of the seating chart is required to be maintained at all times. A copy of the seating chart will be given to the school Field Operations Supervisor, and a copy will be left on the bus. Drivers will make every reasonable effort to deal with infractions of the rules of student conduct. If a driver overlooks the misbehavior of the student(s) in their care, they will lose the respect of the well-behaved students. In cases of minor infractions, the driver should warn the student(s) involved without stopping the bus, if possible. Drivers will, if at all possible, stop the bus if the behavior problem is a serious one. Change the students' seats when possible to de-escalate the situation. Drivers will immediately contact the dispatch office for their assigned area via two-way radio and provide them with details of the situation. If there is a physical confrontation between two or more students, drivers may take all reasonable measures necessary to separate the students involved in the confrontation to preserve the safety and prevent injury. Except in situations of an extremely unusual or serious nature, drivers will not park buses on the side of the road for an extended period of time. Such action should be limited to no more than five (5) minutes in duration. The driver will not return a group of students to a school in the afternoon after reaching a point of approximately one-half (1/2) the distance between the school and the last stop on the trip. It is acceptable to pull into a nearby school for assistance; provided dispatch has been contacted and the school is notified. If you do have to return to a school, contact dispatch so they can call the school and arrange for an administrator to meet the bus. The driver is required to obtain the names of students leaving the bus. The driver will notify the Field Operations Supervisor and dispatch upon returning to the compound that the students have been removed from the bus. Section 2.02B of the Handbook states: "Drivers will possess the appropriate Commercial Driver's License at all times while employed by the Pinellas County Schools and will maintain their license in good standing." Section 10.5.2 of the 2010 "Official Florida CDL Handbook" provides: 10.5.2 Handling Serious Problems Tips on handling serious problems: Follow your school's procedures for discipline or refusal of rights to ride the bus Stop the bus. Park in a safe location off the road, perhaps a parking lot or a driveway. Secure the bus. Take the ignition key with you if you leave your seat. Stand up and speak respectfully to the offender or offenders. Speak in a courteous manner with a firm voice. Remind the offender of the expected behavior. Do not show anger, but do show that you mean business. If a change of seating is needed, request that the student move to a seat near you. Never put a student off the bus except at school or at his or her designated school bus stop. If you feel that the offense is serious enough that you cannot safely drive the bus, call for a school administrator or the police to come and remove the student. Always follow your state and local procedures for requesting assistance. Prior to February 22, 2010, Ms. Velez was aware that she should not stop the bus in the middle of the road when she needed to correct student misconduct. In 2003, she had acknowledged to the compound supervisor for the Pinellas County Schools Transportation Department that the appropriate course of action in dealing with student misconduct would be to pull over to the side of the road.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Velez violated School Board Policies 4140A(9a) and 4140A(23) and Section 2.02 of the Handbook and suspending her for one day without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 14th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, Respondent got into a scuffle with a student; and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes just cause for Petitioner's dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent José Lopez ("Lopez") as a bus driver, a position he has held since 2008. The events in dispute occurred on the afternoon of March 9, 2016. At the time, Lopez was working as a "spare driver," meaning that, instead of being assigned to a regular route, he drove to different locations as needed. This particular afternoon, the dispatcher directed Lopez to make a late pickup at Forest Hill Community High School ("Forest Hill") in West Palm Beach because the regular driver's bus had broken down. Lopez had some trepidation about accepting this assignment because he was familiar with the route in question and considered it dangerous due to the behavior of the students. Nevertheless, he proceeded to Forest Hill as instructed. The bus was behind schedule when Lopez arrived at the school, through no fault of his. The other busses already had pulled away, and the students waiting for Lopez's bus were standing in the road (or "bus loop" as it is called). As the bus pulled up, some students began running beside it, creating a potentially dangerous situation. The administrator on bus duty, Dr. Demetrius Permenter, ordered Lopez to drive around the loop again, so that he could get the students out of the road and under control. Lopez complied. On his second approach, Lopez parked the bus and opened the side-entry double doors, which are located at the front of the bus, opposite the driver (to his right when driving). The students jostled and pushed each other as they rushed to board the bus. Again fearing that someone might get hurt, Dr. Permenter told the students to stop boarding and——to prevent others from entering——instructed Lopez to close the doors. Lopez complied. As the doors closed, students continued to dash in, disobeying Dr. Permenter. The last student to board the bus was Michael Clark, then 17 years old. Although he had bolted inside the bus at the last second, Michael could not proceed to a seat because his arm (or the arm of his jacket) got caught between the doors as they shut, trapping him at the bottom of the interior steps. Fortunately, Michael was not hurt, which was obvious to everyone around, for he began to laugh at the somewhat comical position he had placed himself in. Others, including Dr. Permenter, chuckled too, and Lopez raised his hands, palms forward, in an exaggerated gesture of mock exasperation, before opening the doors, freeing Michael. All told, the student was stuck for about five seconds. To this point, the atmosphere had been one of energetic merriment. The students had been excited, boisterous, and generally in high spirits. But suddenly, the mood changed. As Michael climbed the steps onto the bus, he angrily demanded to know why his arm had been stuck "in the damn door so fucking long." Dr. Permenter clearly heard this disrespectful outburst and knew immediately that "some[thing] was going on." Tr. 96. Lopez thought, "Something is coming. I don't wanna do it." Tr. 335. At hearing, Dr. Permenter testified that Michael's statement could have been perceived as aggressive, Tr. 108, but he did not view it that way at the time, perhaps, in part, because he could not see Michael's face. Tr. 132. Lopez rose from his seat. Although Michael's belligerent query had not been overtly threatening, it carried an unmistakable whiff of menace——enough, clearly, to put a reasonable person on guard. Sitting behind the wheel placed Lopez in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis Michael. Therefore, rising to his feet sensibly increased Lopez's options for fight or flight, should it come to that, and reduced the risk that he would be set upon by an attacker looming over him, raining down blows. In sum, because Michael had addressed Lopez, not as an authority figure, but (at best) as a peer and possibly as prey, Lopez's decision to stand was reasonable under the circumstances. Lopez, who had stood up next to the right edge of the driver's seat, turned to his right to face Michael, who was drawing near, and asked, "What's your problem, man?" In the blink of an eye, the two began to tussle. The question at the heart of this dispute is: Who initiated the physical altercation? The District alleges that Lopez panicked and lashed out at a student merely for using foul language.1/ Lopez claims that he acted reasonably in self-defense after Michael attacked him. Accounts of the next few relevant moments differ sharply, which is par for the course. What is worse, from the fact-finder's perspective, is the thinness of the evidence. The two protagonists were the only witnesses at hearing having personal knowledge of all the relevant facts, and both were relatively inarticulate; they each gave testimony that was neither precise nor explicit. The other eyewitness, Dr. Permenter, described the events with admirable precision, as far as his testimony went, but he did not see everything and could not say whether Lopez or Michael had been the aggressor. Then there are the two surveillance videos ("3A" and "3B"), which together amount to a virtual witness who "testifies" through the sound and images recorded by the cameras mounted on the bus. Yet, while the video evidence is both captivating and seemingly unbiased, it is a mistake to assume casually that the assertive narrative of any given video is objective and unambiguous, for rarely is that true, if ever. Viewers of filmic evidence, including the undersigned, do not somehow become eyewitnesses to past events, for video merely represents, imperfectly, the real events captured on camera. Of necessity, each member of the audience projects onto the images his or her own interpretation of the scenes depicted. As the fact-finder, the undersigned must determine the significance, meaning, and story of the images preserved in videos 3A and 3B based upon a critical review of the films in conjunction with a careful consideration of all the available evidence. Michael testified that after Lopez stood up, he (Lopez) reached for Michael's neck, which initiated the tussle. Video 3A persuasively rebuts Michael's testimony in this regard. Lopez clearly did not reach for Michael's neck——not right away, anyway. Unfortunately for purposes of this case, however, video 3A does not persuasively describe the entire event, as a result of the static position of the camera. Video 3A was shot by a camera mounted at the front of the bus, over the driver's left shoulder (as he faces forward). The angle of the shot gives the viewer the perspective of looking down, from the left side of the bus, onto the front inside area of the vehicle, which encompasses the driver's seat (closest to the camera); the landing at the head of the center aisle, onto which passengers step after ascending the front steps inside the vehicle; the first few rows of passenger seats; and the side-entry double doors located to the driver's right. The disputed event took place largely within sight of this camera. A major drawback of video 3A is that when Lopez stood up, his body got between the camera and Michael, giving us a good shot of Lopez's back, but blocking our view of Michael. Thus, we cannot observe which one made the first physical contact. Despite its limitations, video 3A provides much useful information. As mentioned, there is a landing at the head of the center aisle, which is adjacent to the driver's seat. The center aisle is bordered by silver edging trim (also known as transition strips). The passenger seats and the driver's seat are outside these strips. When Lopez stood and turned to face Michael (as Michael climbed the steps and approached), the driver planted his feet mostly on "his" side of the edging trim; only the toes of his shoes touched the landing. Next to his right foot was a waste basket located on the driver's side of the trim, near the driver's seat. Lopez's calves were quite close to his seat. Simply put, when Lopez stood and faced Michael, he occupied his work station. It was Michael who walked across the landing and got into Lopez's face, while Lopez was standing——literally——in his own personal space. Facing each other, the two briefly exchanged words, but the evidence is insufficient to permit the undersigned to make a finding as to what was said. During this short verbal encounter, Lopez's arms remained at his side. Also, Lopez's feet stayed on his side of the driver's area. It should be understood that, at this moment, Lopez was basically standing his ground, for he was effectively trapped. Unlike Michael, who had the freedom to exit the bus or proceed down the aisle via unobstructed paths, Lopez could not escape except by getting past Michael. For Lopez, retreat meant falling back into his driver's seat, which would have put him at a disadvantage. Video 3A shows that, as the two talked, Lopez abruptly stepped sideways and backwards on his right foot, which bumped into the waste basket. Lopez appears to be reacting to something, and has perhaps been knocked off balance, but Michael's actions cannot be made out because Lopez's body is in the way. After regaining his footing, Lopez reached forward with his right hand while leaning slightly to the right, as if he were going to embrace Michael, and took a step forward with his left foot, raising his left hand towards Michael's waist in a motion that, again, looks like the start of a hug, except that Michael's right arm would have been pinned against his body had Lopez succeeded in getting his arm around the student. Simultaneously, Michael slipped his left hand under Lopez's right arm and grabbed the driver's left shoulder, while using his right hand to take hold of Lopez's left shirt collar. Here, Michael clearly went on the offensive, driving Lopez forcefully back and pushing him into the driver's seat. Lopez got back to his feet, and Michael slammed him hard into the steering wheel and driver's seat. Lopez used his arms in an attempt to protect himself, but Michael began to overpower the driver. At about this time, Dr. Permenter entered the bus, and he reached out immediately to restrain Michael. At the same time, Lopez bounced up and managed to push Michael back a step or two, reaching unsuccessfully for his neck. At hearing, Dr. Permenter recalled that Michael seemed to calm down and stop struggling upon the administrator's arrival. Video 3A rebuts this testimony. As it actually happened, Michael advanced on Lopez and pushed the driver backwards, nearly into the steering wheel, as Dr. Permenter tugged on Michael's arm to pull him away from Lopez. In response, Lopez lunged forward and reached again with both hands for Michael's throat. The School Board uses a screenshot from video 3B capturing this moment that appears to show Lopez choking or strangling Michael. But, though arresting, this particular still is misleading because, whereas the screenshot gives the impression that Lopez had locked his hands around the student's neck, the video shows that in real time the driver's hands were actually in that visually dramatic position for just a split second before releasing. In truth, if Lopez even made contact with Michael's throat, it was an extremely brief touch. Lopez, obviously agitated, exclaimed, "Get out of here, motherfucker!" Dr. Permenter stepped between Lopez and Michael, and said, "Uh uh, let him go, let him go." Without hesitating, Dr. Permenter then threw his body into Lopez, and knocked the driver back into his seat, separating Lopez and Michael. Michael was yelling at Lopez and Dr. Permenter, but his words, as recorded on the videos, cannot be understood. With that, the altercation was over. Shortly thereafter, Michael was escorted off the bus. The District alleges that it has just cause to fire Lopez based upon the following allegations of material fact: As [Michael] was entering the bus, Mr. Lopez closed the bus doors, thereby trapping the [student] in the doors. * * * [Later, d]uring the investigation . . . , Mr. Lopez stated that he accidently closed the bus door on [Michael]. In fact, Michael did become caught in the doors by accident——an accident for which he (Michael), having disobediently boarded the bus knowing that the doors were shutting, was 100% at fault. Lopez, who had closed the doors on Dr. Permenter's order, was blameless in connection with this mishap. After several seconds, Mr. Lopez opened the door. As [Michael] walked up the steps of the bus, [he] questioned Respondent about being caught in the doors. In fact, Michael rudely barked, "Why was my arm stuck in the damn door so fucking long?" Michael was, of course, way out of line in making this menacing remark to the driver, who reasonably rose from his seat in a self-protective maneuver. Respondent is seen [in video 3A] stepping towards the victim and using his body to make contact with [Michael]. In fact, Lopez clearly stood his ground near the driver's seat. It was plainly Michael who moved toward Lopez, not the other way around. Lopez did make contact with Michael, but it is quite possible that Michael made physical contact with Lopez first. The evidence is ambiguous as to the question of whether Lopez or Michael struck first. Mr. Lopez and [Michael] engage[d] in a physical tussle, until they [we]re separated by a school staff member that boarded the bus. Once separated, Mr. Lopez again lunged at [Michael] and made physical contact with the student, which caused a second scuffle. A school staff member got between Respondent and [Michael] and broke up the altercation. Without a doubt, there was a tussle, but there was not, in fact, a "second scuffle" for which Lopez was somehow primarily responsible. The two combatants, in fact, were not actually "separated" until Dr. Permenter threw himself into Lopez and knocked the driver down. Until then, both individuals had thrust and parried with their arms, hands, and legs. During the struggle, Michael was as, if not more, aggressive than Lopez, who was, very possibly, merely defending himself, as he maintains. During the incident, Mr. Lopez used profanity. Lopez admitted this allegation, which was proved, in any event, by clear and convincing evidence, as he can be heard calling Michael a "motherfucker" in the video. The context, however, is crucial. The bad word or words were uttered by Lopez, not gratuitously, but in the heat of battle, when emotions were high and Lopez was understandably and justifiably angry at Michael. In contrast, Michael used profanity gratuitously in the absence of conflict, without justification, when he boarded the bus——far worse conduct.2/ Lopez's use of profanity, under the circumstances, was a de minimis infraction, not just cause for dismissal. The upshot is that the District failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the essential allegation against Lopez, namely that he had initiated and escalated a physical altercation with a student. As far as establishing who the aggressor was, the evidence is ambiguous. Although Lopez did not have the burden to prove his innocence, he presented evidence sufficient to raise the genuine possibility that he had acted in self-defense, not in retaliation, using reasonable force to protect himself from harm while under attack. This genuine possibility precludes the undersigned from forming a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that Lopez acted in an unjustifiably aggressive or retaliatory fashion, as charged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order exonerating Lopez of all charges brought against him in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 March, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment for an altercation he was involved in that occurred on his bus.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence credited by the undersigned at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Wint has been employed by the School Board as a school bus driver for approximately 15 years. There was no evidence presented that Wint had been disciplined for any prior instances of misconduct as a bus driver. Wint is covered as an employee under the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (CBA), which provides that rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent . . . include . . . separation, suspension, dismissal and termination of employees for just cause. Pet. Ex. 1, § 3. School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, 4213, and 8600 were entered as exhibits and apply to Wint's employment.1/ Pet. Exs. 2–5. The School Board issued a Handbook for School Bus Drivers and Bus Aides (Handbook) for the 2017-2018 school year, which applies to Respondent's employment. The Handbook was admitted into evidence.2/ Pet. Ex. 6. School Bus Incident on October 10, 2017 To summarize, on October 10, 2017, Wint was transporting a large group of middle school students on his school bus. Due to a disruption by one of the students, Wint felt it was necessary to pull the bus over. Wint stopped the bus and went to the back to confront a 13-year-old, 8th-grade male student who had intentionally and unnecessarily opened the bus's emergency window, setting off the bus alarm.3/ A video of segments of the confrontation was recorded by students and entered into evidence. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Petitioner's Exhibit 16 is video coverage of the first part of the physical altercation between Wint and the male student. Petitioner's Exhibit 15 is video coverage of the second part of the physical altercation, after both had moved back down the bus aisle to return to their respective seats on the bus.4/ With respect to the details, the incident unfolded as follows: while the bus was in motion, the male student left his assigned seat without permission, went to the back of the bus, and opened the emergency exit window, causing the bus's audible alarm to sound.5/ Wint was required to immediately stop the bus to address the emergency alarm going off. Instead of directly calling dispatch as stated in the Handbook, Wint went to the back of the bus to confront the student, order him back to his assigned seat, assess the situation, and determine the best course of action. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16; Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c). Wint went to the back of the bus and confronted the male student. The altercation started when the male student rose up slightly out of the bus seat and punched Wint in the stomach several times. This evidence was uncontradicted. No other testimony or documents were offered to rebut this evidence. (These initial moments of the confrontation are not on the videos.) The first part of the cellphone video is shot from an elevated angle from the rear bus seat and starts by showing the two locked up, struggling in the back of the bus. Wint has his hands on the male student pulling him up forcefully and attempting to push the male student back up the aisleway to the front of the bus where his seat was located, and away from the other students. The male student pulled free from Wint's grasp and started up the aisleway. However, he turned around immediately and tried to shove Wint. Another male student interceded and restrained the male student by temporarily putting him in a headlock. When this occurred, Wint held back in the aisleway near the rear of the bus, watching and collecting himself. After the initial confrontation in the back of the bus, the second cellphone video picks up the action from a different angle (shooting from the middle of the bus towards the back). Several other students intervened to keep Wint and the male student separated. The male student tried to start up the altercation again and attempted to break through several students to get back at Wint. Wint is standing cornered in the back of the bus with his back to the emergency exit. While all this is going on, there is general pandemonium inside the bus with the other 20 to 25 students watching, yelling, or jeering at the scene. Notably, several of the other students appear frightened or alarmed and are very close to the altercation as it unfolds. The mid-bus cellphone video shows the male student turning around to head back up the bus aisleway. The male student is visibly angry, very upset, and is seen forcefully pounding his fists together defiantly as he walks. Wint is off camera, but the undersigned reasonably infers that Wint is behind the male student following him back up towards the front of the bus. As he walks up the aisleway in front of Wint, in an overt display of strong aggression and uncontrollable anger, the male student leans across a bus seat and violently punches a school bus window with his clenched fist.6/ Pet. Ex. 15. As Wint came down the narrow aisle behind the student and attempted to squeeze past him to continue to the driver's seat, Wint accidentally brushed against the male student.7/ At that point, the video shows the male student rapidly wheel around and the two begin to tussle, hands on each other, in the bus seat. Wint backs the male student up into the bus seat, closer to the window. Wint has both hands near, but not on, the neck area of the male student. There is no punching or swinging, just restraining and controlling. The more persuasive and credible evidence does not support the School Board's claim that Wint was intentionally choking the student with a pressure hold around his neck, nor holding the male student around the neck with his hands. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that Wint is attempting to control and restrain the student by holding him firmly by the collar of his jacket/sweatshirt.8/ At the end, when a female student jumped in to separate the two, Wint abruptly released his hold and headed back to his driver's seat. The cellphone video ends at that point. Although the evidence was conflicting, it revealed, and the undersigned credits, that Wint had previously notified the Miami-Dade County School District (District) in writing that this particular male student had been repeatedly disruptive on his bus. Specifically, Wint complained in writing on or about October 4, 2017, that the same male student had been improperly opening the window and throwing objects outside the bus. His report was on a standard reporting form required by the School Board. It is called Student Case Management Referral, No. 723119. This other reported incident occurred on or about September 29, 2017, several days before the altercation. Resp. Ex. 1. The Student Case Management Referral form turned in by Wint was initialed by a District employee on October 4, 2017, just days before this bus incident on October 10, 2017.9/ Susan Detmold is the district director for Transportation Services since 2013. Detmold viewed the two videos of the altercation between Respondent and the male student. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Detmold opined that it was inappropriate behavior for a bus driver to engage in the behavior exhibited in the videos. Detmold testified that if a student is not sitting in his assigned seat, then the school bus driver should give warnings and provide a misconduct referral to the District.10/ She also testified that in accordance with State Board Rule, only the school principals have the authority to discipline students.11/ Detmold testified that the Handbook provides drivers with procedures to follow when handling student misconduct on the bus. Pet. Ex. 6, §§ 10.06-10.07, pp. 94-96. The Handbook states that school bus drivers can stop the bus if the behavior is a serious one. Drivers will immediately contact their Dispatch Office by two-way radio and provide them with details of the situation. Drivers are to await the aid of the field operations specialist or school police. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c), p. 94. Wint disregarded this guideline in the Handbook and testified that he stopped the bus, went to the back of the bus to confront the student, but did not call Dispatch for school police until after the physical altercation with the male student had ended. The Handbook states in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.0171, State Board Rule, it is the responsibility of the bus driver [t]o maintain order and discipline, under the direction of the school principal, on the part of every passenger. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.03(i), p. 13. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted, by his actions, to maintain order and safety on the bus in the face of a very unruly, aggressive, and violent male student who was putting the safety of the bus, the bus driver, and other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus driver is responsible for the safety of the children in his/her care. A driver should place the safety, health, and well-being of his/her passengers above everything else while they are on the bus. Drivers shall maintain a professional attitude. Drivers should be patient, firm, fair, and friendly. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(e), p.15. The Handbook also states, in part, the school bus drivers will make a reasonable effort to deal with infractions of the rules of student conduct and will, to the best of their ability, maintain order and good behavior by students on their buses. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(o), p. 17. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted during this incident to maintain order and safety on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus drivers must not touch or put [their] hands on students. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.06(a), p. 21. The videos show that Wint did indeed lay his hands on the student, but the undersigned finds that this was done to restrain and control a very unruly and violent student, who presented a safety risk to the operation of the bus and other students on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, school bus drivers will not physically discipline . . . any student. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.07(d), p. 96. The videos do not show that Wint physically disciplined a student. Rather, he justifiably attempted to control a violent, angry, and uncontrollable student who placed his safety and the safety of other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Ultimate Findings of Fact Under the facts outlined herein, the undersigned finds that Wint's actions and conduct during this incident conformed with sections 1006.10 and 1012.45, Florida Statutes. The undersigned finds that the School Board's rules, policies, and Handbook provisions proscribe conduct authorized or required by sections 1006.10 and 1012.45 for a bus driver dealing with an unruly and violent student in an emergency situation. To the extent they do so, they are invalid and not controlling.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County immediately reinstating Respondent, Livingston Wint, to his position as school bus driver and provide him with back pay and other accumulated benefits since his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice when it failed to hire Petitioner for the position of Training and Safety Specialist in November 1998 and December 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner first began to work for Respondent as a substitute school bus driver in November 1988, approximately half-way through the 1987-88 school year. He worked as a substitute bus driver for the remainder of that school year and approximately half of the 1988-89 school year until he was hired as a full time bus driver in January 1989. He continued to work as bus driver through the 1993-94 school year, a total of six and a half school years. In August 1994 (the start of the 1994-95 school year), Petitioner was hired as a para-professional, i.e., teacher’s assistant, in Respondent's Adjudicative Youth Program. Petitioner is still employed in that position. The program serves students who have previously been in the juvenile justice system and are now being reintegrated into the school system. Petitioner does not hold a teacher’s certificate. However, Petitioner has gained some teaching experience in his current position because he occasionally serves as a substitute teacher. Petitioner received an associates degree in criminal justice in 1995. He has taken additional classes towards a bachelor's degree, in business administration and in exceptional student education. However, he is at least a semester short of a degree in either subject. After Petitioner left his position as a school bus driver in 1994, he did not maintain his certification by taking the required eight hours of annual “in service” training and by taking an annual physical as required by Rule 6A-3.0141(9), Florida Administrative Code. In November 1998, Respondent posted notice of a vacancy for the position of Transportation and Safety Specialist. The position was coming open because Joe Dixson, the Training and Safety Specialist at that time, was retiring. The Training and Safety Specialist supervises the bus driver trainers and is responsible for coordinating the initial and continuing "in service" training of the bus drivers. The Training and Safety Specialist also serves as a liaison with law enforcement officials in the event a school bus is involved in an accident and is responsible for maintaining the bus drivers' records, including the commercial drivers license (CDL) records, which were examined by the State annually. The minimum qualifications for the position, as set forth in the November 1998 job posting, were: Knowledge, Abilities, Skills: Considerable knowledge of school bus operation and training program. Considerable knowledge of the hazards and driving safety precautions relating to transportation of students. Knowledge of rules and regulations of the School Board, State Board of Education and of State and Federal laws. Ability to maintain a driver education program. Ability to implement and maintain an effective working relationship with school personnel and the public. Training and Experience: Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent Vocational/Technical training or certification. Five years experience in school transportation. Licenses or Certifications: Appropriate State of Florida Driver’s license. Florida Department of Education teacher [sic] certificate in school bus driver training. Physical Requirements: Light Work: Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally and/or up to 10 pounds of force as frequently as needed to move objects. Seven individuals submitted applications for the position, including Petitioner and Sharon Arnold. Petitioner, Ms. Arnold, and all of the other applicants were interviewed on November 20, 1998. The interviews were conducted by a five-member committee who scored each applicant on various issues. Petitioner's average score (82 out of 120) was the lowest of all of the applicants interviewed. By contrast, Ms. Arnold's average score (100.4 out of 120) was the third highest.1 Neither Petitioner nor Ms. Arnold were qualified for the position because they did not have a bachelor's degree or "equivalent Vocational/Technical training or certification." The certification was explained at hearing to be a teaching certificate issued by the Department of Education (DOE) to a plumber, for example, to teach a vocational class in plumbing. This explanation is consistent with DOE's rules. See, e.g., Rule 6A-4.076, Florida Administrative Code. None of the other applicants had these minimum qualifications either. Accordingly, Mr. Murphy recommended to the School Board that the minimum qualifications be changed to eliminate the requirement for a bachelor’s degree and to require only an “ability to obtain” the DOE certificate in bus driver training. The School Board approved Mr. Murphy’s recommendation. The purpose of the change in the minimum qualifications was to increase the pool of eligible applicants for the position. The effect of the change was to make Petitioner, Ms. Arnold, and potentially others eligible for the position. In December 1998, Respondent re-posted the notice for the Transportation and Safety Specialist position. The minimum qualifications for the position, as set forth in the December 1998 posting, were: Knowledge, Abilities, Skills: Considerable knowledge of school bus operation and training program. Considerable knowledge of the hazards and driving safety precautions relating to transportation of students. Knowledge of rules and regulations of the School Board, State Board of Education and of State and Federal laws. Ability to maintain a driver education program. Ability to implement and maintain an effective working relationship with school personnel and the public. Training and Experience: Graduation from high school or completion of GED. Five years experience in school transportation. Licenses or Certifications: Appropriate State of Florida Driver’s license. Ability to obtain a Florida Department of Education certificate in school bus driver training. Physical Requiriments: Light Work: Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally and/or up to 10 pounds of force as frequently as needed to move objects. The major functions and illustrative duties of the position were not changed in the December 1998 posting. The salary grade (14) and salary range ($28,800–32,490) also remained the same. The salary for the Transportation and Safety Specialist position was based upon 12 months of work. Petitioner's salary in December 1998 was $17,518, but that was based upon a 194-day (i.e., school year) contract period. Seven individuals, including Petitioner and Ms. Arnold, applied for the position as re-advertised. Of the original applicants, Ms. Arnold and Petitioner were the only individuals who reapplied. Petitioner, Ms. Arnold, and the other applicants were interviewed on December 9, 1998. The applicants were interviewed by a four-member committee who scored each applicant in the same manner as before. Ms. Arnold received the highest average score from the interviewers, 107.5 out of 120. By contrast, Petitioner's average score was only 82.5 out of 120.2 Based upon the interviews, the committee recommended to Mr. Murphy that Ms. Arnold be hired for the position. Mr. Murphy accepted the committee’s recommendation and Ms. Arnold was hired as the Transportation and Safety Specialist starting in January 1999. She was hired at the minimum salary, and she is currently employed in that position. Ms. Arnold was first employed by Respondent in March 1987, as a substitute bus driver. She was hired as a full-time bus driver in May 1987, in advance of the 1987-88 school year. She continued to work as a bus driver until she was hired as Transportation and Safety Specialist, a total of 11 school years. In addition to her duties as a bus driver, Ms. Arnold served as a bus driver trainer since 1993. In that capacity, she provided on-road training to newly-hired and prospective bus drivers by observing their performance and helping them learn their routes. Ms. Arnold volunteered for these additional duties, although she was paid her hourly wage for conducting the training. She provided this training during the week between her morning and afternoon bus driving shifts, and sometimes on the weekends. Petitioner never served as a bus driver trainer. Ms. Arnold is certified by the State as a CDL trainer and examiner for Class A, B, and, C vehicles. As a result, she is authorized to teach and test persons applying for a CDL license to drive a school bus, tractor trailer, and other large vehicles. Ms. Arnold assisted the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles staff as a CDL examiner during the summers and received positive feedback on her work. Petitioner is not a certified CDL trainer or examiner. Ms. Arnold is also certified by DOE as a school bus driver trainer. She holds a Level 1 certification which allows her to administer classroom training, as well as a Level 2 certification which allows her to administer on-road training. Petitioner does not hold the DOE certifications, although he has the ability to obtain them. Ms. Arnold received the DOE certifications in October 1998 after a week-long seminar paid for by Respondent. Ms. Arnold was recommended for the seminar by Mr. Dixson and her area supervisor. Mr. Dixson recommended her because of the dedication and hard work that she exhibited when working as a bus driver trainer. Other drivers were recommended for the seminar as well; however, Petitioner was not one of those recommended. In addition to her formal duties as a school bus driver, Ms. Arnold volunteered at Frost Proof Elementary School prior to the start of each school year to help answer parents' questions about their child's school bus route. There is no evidence to support Petitioner's contention that the minorities are systematically overlooked for professional positions in Respondent's transportation department. To the contrary, the evidence shows that since 1993 when Mr. Murphy was hired as the administrator responsible for the transportation department, minority employment in advanced positions has increased significantly, from zero to six (out of 18) bus driver trainers and from zero to six (out of 27) professional staff.
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 dismissing Petitioner’s charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2002, 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 14th day of May, 2002.
