The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, DeSoto County School Board (School Board), to suspend Respondent without pay, and terminate her employment as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Relevant Policies The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools in DeSoto County. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2018). This includes the power to discipline instructional staff, such as classroom teachers. §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33, Fla. Stat. Respondent is an ESE classroom teacher at DeSoto County High School (High School). Although Respondent has been teaching for 23 years, she has only been an ESE classroom teacher for the School Board since 2016. Superintendent Cline is an elected official who has authority for making School Board personnel decisions. His duties include recommending to the School Board that a teacher be terminated. § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat. David Bremer (Principal Bremer) was the principal at the High School at all times relevant to these proceedings, and Cynthia Langston served as the Assistant Principal. The parties’ employment relationship is governed by School Board policies, Florida laws, Department of Education regulations, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by the School Board and the Desoto County Educators Association, a public union. The CBA relevant to this action was effective July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021. The School Board employed Respondent on an annual contract basis. “Annual contract” means an employment contract for a period of no longer than one school year which the School Board may choose to award or not award without cause. § 1012.335(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The testimony at the hearing and language in the CBA establish that the annual contract of a teacher, who has received an indication he or she “Needs Improvement” or is placed on an improvement plan, is not eligible for automatic renewal. In these situations, the superintendent has discretion regarding whether to renew that teacher’s annual contract. See CBA, Art. 8, § 16. Article 22, section 8 of the CBA provides for progressive discipline for teachers in the following four steps: (1) verbal reprimand (with written notation placed in the site file); (2) written reprimand (filed in personnel and site files); (3) suspension with or without pay; and (4) dismissal. The CBA makes clear that progressive discipline must be followed, “except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [involve a] flagrant violation.” February 11, 2019 (the February 11 Incident) This proceeding arises from an incident that occurred on February 11, 2019, after lunch in Respondent’s ESE classroom. The School Board alleges Respondent intentionally threw a foam or Nerf-type football at a student in a wheelchair when he failed to follow her instructions, and the football hit the student. Respondent asserts she playfully threw stress ball-type footballs up in the air and one accidently bounced and hit A.R.’s chair. Respondent’s classroom at the High School consisted of ten to 12 ESE students during the 2018-2019 school year. These students had special needs and some were nonverbal. On the day of the incident, there were nine or ten students in Respondent’s classroom, including A.R., a high school senior with cerebral palsy. Respondent kept small foam or Nerf-type footballs in her desk drawer. The testimony at the hearing established Respondent had used them in the classroom to get the students’ attention in a playful fashion. In addition to Respondent, four paraprofessionals assisted the students in the classroom. Of the four, only three were in the classroom during the February 11 incident: Ms. Walker, Mr. Blevins, and Ms. Murray. Respondent was responsible for A.R. while in her classroom. A.R. uses a wheelchair or a walker to get around, but has a special chair-desk in Respondent’s classroom. A.R. had difficulty in the classroom setting. Specifically, it was noted at the hearing that he has trouble processing what is happening around him, and that he needs help simplifying tasks that require more than one step. Although A.R. is verbal, he is slow to respond. A.R. was described as a “repeater” because he repeats things that others say, smiles if others are smiling, or laughs if others are laughing. In conversation, A.R. would typically smile and nod, or say “yes.” Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s recollections of the February 11 incident were essentially the same. They testified that on the afternoon of February 11, 2019, the students returned to Respondent’s classroom from art class. They were excited and did not settle down for their lesson. As a result, Respondent became frustrated and yelled at the students to get their pencils so they could start their work. Respondent asked A.R., who was in his special chair-desk, to obtain a pencil. A.R. did not respond immediately and Respondent told him to get his pencil or she would throw a football. Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s testimony established that, at this point, Respondent threw either one or two blue, soft, Nerf-type footballs approximately six inches long at A.R., who was looking in another direction. One of these blue footballs hit A.R. either in the side of his torso or back. A.R. began flailing his arms while he was in his chair-desk, and the entire room became silent. Ms. Murray was not facing A.R. during the incident, but she heard Respondent yell at A.R. to pay attention. She did not see Respondent throw the balls and was unsure if any of the balls made contact with A.R. After the incident, however, she saw two balls on the floor, picked them up, and returned them to Respondent. Ms. Murray did not recall the color of the footballs, and could only describe them as “squishy.” Respondent testified that A.R. was not paying attention, and she admits she told him she was going to toss the footballs if he did not get his pencil. She denies throwing a blue football at A.R., but instead claims she threw two smaller foam brown footballs. She denied any of the balls hit him, but rather, explained one of the brown footballs bounced off the floor and hit A.R.’s chair-desk; the other fell on her desk. The undersigned finds the testimony of Respondent less credible than the paraprofessionals’ testimony. First, all of the evidence established Respondent clearly threw footballs after A.R. did not respond to her instruction, and Respondent knew (or should have known) that A.R. was incapable of catching the football or responding positively. Second, Respondent’s version of what happened to the balls after she threw them is inconsistent with the testimony of Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins that one ball hit A.R. Respondent’s testimony that one ball fell on her desk is also inconsistent with Ms. Murray’s testimony that she picked up two balls off the floor. Finally, Respondent’s version of events is not believable in part, because neither the brown nor the blue football entered into evidence had sufficient elasticity (or bounciness) to have acted in the manner described by Respondent. Based on the credible evidence and testimony, the undersigned finds Respondent intentionally threw the blue larger footballs at A.R. knowing he would not be able to catch them, one ball hit A.R. in the side or back, and A.R. became startled from being hit. There was no evidence proving A.R. was physically, emotionally, or mentally harmed. Report and Investigation of the February 11 Incident Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins were taken aback by Respondent’s behavior. Ms. Walker was concerned that A.R. did not realize what was happening, and that the rest of the students were in shock. She did not think a teacher should throw anything at any student. Mr. Blevins similarly stated he was stunned and did not believe Respondent’s conduct was appropriate, especially because A.R. was in a wheelchair. At the hearing, Respondent also admitted it would be inappropriate to throw anything at a student even if it was just to get his or her attention. Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins attempted to report the incident immediately to the High School administration. Ms. Walker left the classroom to report the incident to Principal Bremer, who was unavailable. Ms. Walker then reported to Assistant Principal Langston what she had seen happen to A.R. in Respondent’s classroom. During this conversation, Ms. Walker was visibly upset. After listening to Ms. Walker, Assistant Principal Langston suggested she contact the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Ms. Walker used the conference room phone and immediately contacted the abuse hotline at DCF. As a result, DCF opened an abuse investigation into the incident. Meanwhile, Mr. Blevins had also left Respondent’s classroom to report the incident to Assistant Principal Langston. When he arrived, he saw that Ms. Walker was already there and assumed she was reporting what had happened. Therefore, he did not immediately report anything. Later that day, Assistant Principal Langston visited Respondent’s classroom, but did not find anything unusual. She did not speak to Respondent about the incident reported by Ms. Walker. The next day, February 12, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston obtained statements from the paraprofessionals, including Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins in Respondent’s classroom regarding the February 11 incident. These statements were forwarded to Superintendent Cline, who had been advised of the incident and that DCF was conducting an investigation. It is Superintendent Cline’s practice to advise administrators to place a teacher on suspension with pay during an investigation. If the teacher is cleared, the administrator should move forward with reinstatement. In this case, Principal Bremer met with Respondent on February 12, 2019, and informed her she would be placed on suspension with pay while DCF conducted its investigation into the incident. DCF closed its investigation on February 19, 2019. No one who conducted the DCF investigation testified at the hearing, and the final DCF report was not offered into evidence. Rather, the School Board offered a DCF document titled “Investigative Summary (Adult Institutional Investigation without Reporter Information).” This document falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, and was admitted into evidence. The undersigned finds, however, the Investigative Summary unpersuasive and unreliable to support any findings. The document itself is a synopsis of another report. Moreover, the document is filled with abbreviations and specialized references, but no one with personal knowledge of the investigation explained the meaning of the document at the final hearing. Finally, the summary indicates DCF closed the investigation because no physical or mental injury could be substantiated. On February 21, 2019, Principal Bremer notified Superintendent Cline that DCF had cleared Respondent, but did not provide him with a copy of the DCF report or summary. Principal Bremer did not have to consult with Superintendent Cline regarding what action to take regarding Respondent. Based on the DCF finding that the allegation of abuse or maltreatment was “Not Substantiated,” Principal Bremer reinstated Respondent to her position as an ESE teacher, but still issued her a written reprimand. The reprimand titled “Improper Conduct Maltreatment to a Student” stated in relevant part: I am presenting you with this written reprimand as discipline action for your improper conduct of throwing foam balls at a student. On February 11, 2019 it was reported you threw a football at [A.R.], a vulnerable adult suffering from physical limitations. As a result of this action, Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) were called to investigate and you were suspended until the investigation was complete. Although maltreatment of [sic] Physical or Mental Injury was not substantiated, DCF reported three adults in the room witnessed you throwing at least two foam balls at [A.R.] because he did not get a pencil on time. Apparently [A.R.] did not follow through with the direction provided by you and you became frustrated for that reason. I am by this written reprimand, giving you an opportunity to correct your improper conduct and observe Building rules in the future. I expect you will refrain hereafter from maltreatment to a student and fully meet the duties and responsibilities expected of you in your job. Should you fail to do so, you will subject yourself to further disciplinary action, including a recommendation for immediate termination and referral of the Professional Practices Commission. On February 25, 2019, Respondent returned to her same position as an ESE teacher, in her same classroom, with the same students, including A.R. Superintendent’s Investigation and Recommendation to Terminate Meanwhile, Superintendent Cline requested a copy of the report of the investigation from DCF and contacted the DCF investigator. Based on his review of what was provided to him and his conversation with DCF, he concluded A.R. may still be at risk. Superintendent Cline found Respondent’s actions worthy of termination because “it is unacceptable to throw a football at a student who has cerebral palsy, and thus, such conduct violates” state rules and School Board policy. School Board PRO at 15, ¶ 72. There was no credible evidence at the hearing that A.R. or any other student was at risk from Respondent. The School Board failed to establish at the hearing what additional information, if any, Superintendent Cline received that was different from the information already available to him, or that was different from the information provided to Principal Bremer. There was no justification or plausible explanation as to why Superintendent Cline felt the need to override Principal Bremer’s decision to issue a written reprimand for the violations. On March 6, 2019, Superintendent Cline issued a letter suspending Respondent without pay effective March 8, 2019, and indicating his intent to recommend to the School Board that it terminate Respondent’s employment at its next regular board meeting on March 26, 2019. Attached to the letter were copies of the Investigative Summary, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081, and School Board Policy 3210. This letter was delivered by a School Board’s human resources employee to Respondent on March 8, 2019. Respondent did not return to the classroom for the remainder of the school year. Respondent’s Disciplinary History Prior to the February 11 incident, Respondent had received an oral reprimand for attendance issues on December 21, 2018. On February 6, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston met with Respondent to address deficiencies in Respondent’s attendance, lesson plans, timeliness of entering grades, and concerns with individual education plans for her ESE students. At that meeting, Assistant Principal Langston explained Respondent would be put on an improvement plan and that if Respondent did not comply with the directives discussed at the meeting, she would be subject to further discipline, including termination. Although the plan was memorialized, Respondent was not given the written plan until after she returned from the suspension. Ultimate Findings of Fact Respondent intentionally threw two footballs in an overhand manner at A.R., a student who could not comprehend the situation and could not catch the balls. She did so either in an attempt to garner the student’s attention or out of frustration because he was not following directions. Respondent did not violate rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., because there was no evidence the incident exposed A.R. to harm, or that A.R.’s physical or mental health or safety was in danger. Similarly, Respondent did not violate School Board Policy 3210(A)(1). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., which prohibits a teacher from “intentionally expos[ing] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” The evidence established Respondent’s action in throwing the ball was intentional and was done to embarrass or belittle A.R. for not following her directions. For the same reason, Respondent’s conduct violated School Board Policy 3210(A)(5). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7., which states that a teacher “[s]hall not harass or discriminate . . . any student on the basis of . . . handicapping condition . . . and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment.” Again, the credible evidence established the act of a teacher throwing any item at any student, especially one who requires a wheelchair, is inappropriate and would be considered harassment on the basis of a student’s handicap. Similarly, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., which requires that a teacher “not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes . . . with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.” For the same reasons listed above, Respondent’s conduct also amounts to a violation of School Board Policy 3210(A)(7). There was no evidence this conduct constituted a real immediate danger to the district, nor does it rise to the level of a flagrant violation. Therefore, the School Board must apply the steps of progressive discipline set forth in article 22, section 8 of the CBA. Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, Respondent should have received a written reprimand for the February 11 incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the DeSoto County School Board: enter a final order finding Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and (2)(c)4.; and corresponding School Board Policy 3210(A)(5) and (7); rescind the notice of termination dated March 6, 2019, and, instead, reinstate Principal Bremer’s written reprimand dated February 25, 2019; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or Collective Bargaining Agreement provision that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits from March 8, 2019, to the end of the term of her annual contract for the 2018-2019 school year. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 13th day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Adrian H. Cline, Superintendent The School District of DeSoto County 530 LaSolona Avenue Post Office Drawer 2000 Arcadia, Florida 34265-2000 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor at Crestview Elementary School in the Miami-Dade County School District.1/ Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). Pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D of the UTD contract, Respondent may be discharged only for "just cause," which includes, but is not limited to, "misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." 2009-2010 School Year During the 2009-2010 academic year, Respondent was assigned to Crestview Elementary School ("Crestview") as its school security monitor. At the beginning of the year, Melissa Mesa, Crestview's principal at that time, provided Respondent with a schedule that detailed her responsibilities and duties as a monitor. In particular, Ms. Mesa advised Respondent that she was required to report to work at 7:30 a.m. and ensure that students unloaded from the buses safely. Respondent was further informed that she was required, among other tasks, to watch the students in the cafeteria during breakfast and lunch, direct visitors to the front office, patrol the hallways, and ensure that Crestview's gates were locked. Finally, Respondent was clearly instructed that her workday did not end until 3:30 p.m. Almost immediately, Respondent began to exhibit a pattern of excessive absenteeism. Specifically, during her first month of work, Respondent was absent three times. Over the next two months (October and November), Respondent was absent without authorization on eight occasions. In response to these repeated absences, Ms. Mesa provided an "Absence from Worksite Directive" to Respondent on December 3, 2009. In the directive, Ms. Mesa informed Respondent, in relevant part, that "[a]ttendance and punctuality are essential functions of [the] job . . . . [and that Respondent's] absence from duties adversely impacts the educational / work environment, particularly in effective operation of [the] worksite." The directive further provided that failure to be "in regular attendance and on time" would be considered insubordination and a violation of professional responsibilities. Notwithstanding the December 3, 2009, directive, Respondent failed to report for work——without authorization——on: December 17, 2009; January 11, 12, and 19, 2010; and February 11, 12, and 16, 2010. On February 19, 2010, a conference for the record was held with Respondent to discuss her repeated, unexcused absences. Three days later, Respondent was provided with a summary of the conference for the record, as well as a written reprimand from Ms. Mesa. Despite the February 19, 2010, meeting and the issuance of a reprimand, Respondent missed an additional three days of work, without authorization, over the next three months. In all, Respondent accumulated in excess of 30 absences (18 of which were unexcused) during the 2009-2010 school year, which adversely affected Crestview's operations. In particular, Ms. Burch-Oliver, an assistant principal at Crestview, was often required to assume Respondent's duties on the days Respondent failed to report for work. 2010-2011 School Year On August 20, 2010, Sabrina Montilla, Crestview's new principal, met with Respondent and explained her schedule and duties——that were identical to Respondent's responsibilities during the previous year——as a security monitor for 2010-2011. Notwithstanding the August meeting, Respondent was absent a total of nine times (three of which were unauthorized) between September 8, 2010, and December 8, 2010. During that same span, Respondent left early three times and was tardy on 12 occasions. As a result, a conference for the record was held on December 14, 2010, to discuss Respondent's attendance and her noncompliance with worksite directives. Ms. Montilla issued a written reprimand to Respondent on the following day. Nevertheless, between December 14, 2010, and April 11, 2011, Respondent was tardy 12 more times, often by substantial amounts of time (on three occasions, Respondent was at least 90 minutes late). In addition, Respondent missed two and one-half days of work without authorization: a half day on March 25 and full days on January 31 and April 6. A conference for the record was scheduled for April 22, 2011, to discuss, once again, Respondent's attendance issues. Respondent failed to appear, however, and was issued a reprimand shortly thereafter. Regrettably, Respondent's noncompliance with her work schedule continued. Specifically, Respondent was tardy on May 2, 9, 12, and 18, 2011, left work early on May 11, 2011, and was absent without authorization on May 3, 12, and 19, 2011 (absent a full day on May 3, and half days on the other dates). Subsequently, on May 24, 2011, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards. During the conference, Respondent was provided with, but declined, an opportunity to respond to the allegations of gross insubordination, noncompliance with professional responsibilities, and violations several School Board Rules. On August 23, 2011, Respondent was informed that the Superintendent of Schools would make a recommendation at the September 7, 2011, School Board meeting that she be dismissed from her employment as a security monitor. Respondent's Final Hearing Testimony During the final hearing in this cause, Respondent attributed her failure to adhere to Crestview's schedule during the 2009-2010 school year to the fact that she was pregnant with her third child——she gave birth on June 13, 2010——and frequently suffered from morning sickness. Respondent further testified that as a single parent with two other children (ages five and eight), she was responsible for dropping her middle child off at Charles Drew Elementary School——located some distance from Crestview——at the same time that she was scheduled to report for work. While Respondent indicates that, "in the beginning," she was paying "someone" to take her child to work, the person she hired would often leave her in the lurch. However, Respondent failed to explain why she was unwilling or unable to find a more reliable individual to take her child to school. With respect to the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent testified that her attendance problems continued due to her newborn's medical issues———asthma and heart murmurs——and the need to transport her baby to daycare. Although Respondent concedes that School District provided her with information about Family Medical Leave Act, Respondent admits that she made no effort to secure medical leave to be with her son. Finally, Petitioner testified that her childcare issues have been solved by her use of a daycare facility near Crestview and the transfer of her daughter to Crestview from Charles Drew Elementary. As a result, Petitioner believes that should her employment be reinstated, she would now be able to comply with the attendance requirements of her position. While the undersigned credits the portions of Respondent's testimony discussed above, which no doubt reveal that she was dealing with challenging issues as a single parent, the fact remains that Respondent failed——on repeated occasions—— to reconcile the tension between her family responsibilities and the demands of her employment. Although Respondent made a decision that many parents would in her situation (to prioritize family over her job duties), the fact remains that she made a deliberate, knowing choice to be absent and tardy on numerous occasions during two different school years. Ultimate Findings The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of failing to behave in such a manner that reflects credit upon herself and the school system. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of violating the School Board's Code of Ethics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II, and III of the Notice of Specific Charges. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment, or, in the alternative, impose a penalty other than Respondent's dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. EDWARD T. BAUER 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 12th day of January, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct (to: wit: "conduct unbecoming a School Board employee" and "misconduct in office") alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County, Florida, just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence received at the formal hearing in this case, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, an employee of the School Board occupying a school monitor position. He currently is under suspension as a result of the incident described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Other than this suspension, he has had no formal disciplinary action taken against him during the period of his employment with the School Board. 1/ Respondent's employment with the School Board began on March 10, 1993, when he was hired to fill an hourly school monitor position at John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK). At the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent became a full-time school monitor at JFK. He remained in that position until he was administratively reassigned in March of 1995, following the incident which led to the initiation of the instant disciplinary proceeding. As a school monitor, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997 (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of a "employer rights." Section 1 of Article V provides, in part, that the School Board has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article VIII of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of a "safe learning environment." Section 1, paragraph A, of Article VIII provides as follows: A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Section 1, paragraph D, of Article VIII provides, in part, as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accord- ingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 1, paragraph B, of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)." Section 3, paragraph D, of Article XXI provides that educational support personnel who have completed their probationary period may be dismissed for just cause, which includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality and/or conviction of a crime involving moral tur- pitude. Such charges are defined, as appli- cable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009. Section 3, paragraph F, of Article XXI provides, in part, that such an educational support employee is entitled to an appeal hearing on the Superintendent's recommendation that he or she be terminated and is further entitled to be served by the School Board with a Notice of Specific Charges prior to the hearing. Valerie Carrier is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the principal of JFK. As principal, Carrier is responsible for the overall operation of the school. It is her obligation to take the necessary measures to maintain a safe environment for the school's students. There is a security staff at the school, comprised of school monitors, that assists Carrier in carrying out this responsibility. According to their job description, the school monitors on the school's security staff have the following "basic objectives" and "job tasks/responsibilities:" BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures that appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school admini- stration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the pre- sence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gathering areas (before, during and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Carrier assigns each school monitor a post at which the monitor performs these job duties. If a monitor observes, from his or her post, a student engaging in inappropriate behavior, the monitor may attempt to verbally redirect the student, but the monitor is not permitted to impose consequences for the student's behavior. Each monitor is issued a hand-held radio to be used for communicating with other school personnel. If a misbehaving student fails to comply with a monitor's verbal instructions, the monitor is required to use the hand-held radio to advise an administrator of the situation. Joshua Cummings was a student at JFK during the 1994-95 school year. He frequently engaged in inappropriate behavior. Carrier gave the members of her staff, including Respondent, special instructions regarding how they should respond to acts of inappropriate behavior on Joshua's part. 2/ She told them that they should report any such acts directly to her or, in her absence, her designee. On March 17, 1995, during the first lunch period, Respondent was assigned to a post on the entrance courtyard side of the chain link double-gate that separates the entrance courtyard from the cafeteria spill-out area. The cafeteria spill-out area is, as its name suggests, an area outside the cafeteria where students gather after eating lunch and wait for their lunch period to end. There is a school monitor posted in the cafeteria spill-out area near the door that students use to exit the cafeteria and enter the spill-out area. Another school monitor is stationed on the other side of the exit door inside the cafeteria. Pursuant to the standard operating procedure at the school, the chain link double-gate between the entrance courtyard and the cafeteria spill-out area remains closed and locked until the end of the lunch period, when the students are picked up by their teacher. At the teacher's request, the school monitor manning the post on the entrance courtyard side of the double-gate unlocks (with a key) and then opens the double-gate 3/ and lets the students waiting in the cafeteria spill-out area go into the entrance courtyard to meet their teacher. If it becomes necessary for a student in the spill-out area to use the restroom before the end of the lunch period, the student must reenter the cafeteria, obtain a pass from an administrator 4/ and then leave the cafeteria through the cafeteria's main entrance. Students are not permitted to use the double-gate to exit the spill- out area before the end of the lunch period. On March 17, 1995, Joshua Cummings had lunch during the first lunch period (which began at approximately 11:30 a.m. and lasted approximately 30 minutes). Jean LaDouceur and Dorys Cadet were among the other students who had lunch during the first lunch period on March 17, 1995. Approximately 100 or more of these students, including Joshua, Jean and Dorys, were in the cafeteria spill-out area, prior to the end of the first lunch period on this date, when Joshua started shaking the chain-link double- gate and yelling at Respondent to unlock and open the gate so that he (Joshua) could go to the restroom (which was located off the entrance courtyard near the gate). Respondent was in the area of his assigned post in the entrance courtyard sitting on the steps leading to the school auditorium. He got up and, as he walked toward the double-gate, he told Joshua that Joshua had to wait until the end of the period if he wanted to exit the spill-out area through the double-gate. Joshua apparently did not want to wait. He continued to shake the double-gate and shout obscenities at Respondent. Respondent responded in an unseemly and inappropriate manner that evinced a reckless disregard for the safety of Joshua and the other students in the spill-out area who were around him. Instead of continuing his efforts to verbally redirect Joshua or radioing for assistance, Respondent, from his position on the courtyard side of the double-gate, responded to Joshua's misbehavior by angrily hurling his hand-held radio (which had a battery pack attached to it) at the gate near where Joshua (who was on the spill-out area side of the gate) was standing. The radio hit the gate and shattered. Jean and Dorys were sitting on a picnic table in the spill-out area approximately twenty feet from the double-gate. There were several other students on or near the table with whom Jean and Dorys were conversing. The battery pack that had been attached to Respondent's hand-held radio before Respondent threw the radio at the gate wound up striking Jean on the right side of his forehead while he was sitting on the picnic table. (It apparently travelled through a space in the center of the gate.) Jean started bleeding. Accompanied by Dorys, Jean went to see Carrier to report what had happened. (To get to Carrier's office, which is off the entrance courtyard, approximately 20 feet from the double gate, they had to reenter the cafeteria because the double-gate was still locked.) Joshua also went to see Carrier. (He had been "nick[ed]" by a piece of Respondent's shattered radio.) After speaking with Jean and Joshua, Carrier called fire rescue. Fire rescue subsequently arrived on the scene and treated Jean's wound. Jean was advised by the paramedic who treated him to have a physician close the wound with stitches. Jean, however, did not seek further medical attention. (The wound eventually healed, but Jean has a small scar on the right side of his forehead as a result of his injury.) Carrier also called Jean's and Joshua's parents. After Jean's and Joshua's parents arrived at school, Carrier met with Respondent to discuss the incident. Respondent told Carrier what had happened. He went with Carrier to the entrance courtyard where he had been stationed and described how and where he had thrown his hand-held radio. Carrier picked up the pieces of Respondent's hand-held radio that were lying on the ground near the double-gate. Respondent also freely and voluntarily, at Carrier's request, prepared a written statement on the day of the incident in which he admitted that earlier that day, at about 11:53 a.m., in response to Joshua's yelling and kicking the double-gate, he had thrown his radio at the gate and that "parts of the radio [had gone] thr[ough] the gate and nick[ed Joshua]." After hearing the students' and Respondent's accounts of the incident, Carrier had legitimate concerns regarding Respondent's ability to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a school monitor. Respondent's conduct had jeopardized the health, safety and well-being of the very individuals it was his job, as a school monitor, to protect. Following the completion of an investigation of the incident, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools recommended 5/ that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate a dismissal proceeding against him. The School Board took such recommended action at its July 12, 1995, meeting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School. Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently. During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties. Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule. During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2 The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives. From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4 The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule. After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008. Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action." By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care. From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5 Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments. On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written. Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated: On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18, 20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9, 2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting. Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination. It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor. You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities: Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6] Refusal to meet with this administrator. Failure to adhere to school site procedures. Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written. At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable. Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7 After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students. On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated: This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block. On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment. On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator." As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal. Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8 On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended. On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination." On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics. At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28. Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 15th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") proved by clear and convincing evidence that it has just cause to discipline Respondent, Jeffrey Schector, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at Eagles Landing Middle School in the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. A Collective Bargaining Agreement existed, which governed relations between the School Board and certain employees, including Respondent. Resp. Ex. 7. Article II, Section M of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline), provided, in relevant part: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrong doing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * 5. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph 7 below may be cited. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation * * * Written Reprimand * * * Suspension Without Pay * * * Dismissal . . . . Respondent acknowledged receipt of the School Board's Code of Ethics on October 13, 2010. See Pet. Ex. 1. While teaching at Eagles Landing Middle School, Respondent received a Memorandum of Specific Incident dated January 29, 2013, for a lack of professionalism displayed during interactions with the mathematics team. Pet. Ex. 2. Written Reprimand on December 2, 2013 Respondent was disciplined and issued a written reprimand on December 2, 2013, for violations of School Board policies regarding Commitment to Student Principles, Code of Ethics, and state statutes regarding the education professional. He had been found to have engaged in inappropriate horseplay with a student which ended with the student falling to the floor. Additionally, Respondent tossed a student's crutches from his classroom and referred to the student as a "cripple." In the reprimand, Respondent was advised to cease and desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future, and, if he did not, he would be subject to further discipline up to and including termination. Pet. Ex. 7. The evidence during the hearing reflected that Respondent had received several recent performance evaluations during his tenure with the School Board. For the 2013 school year, his performance evaluation was "effective." For an evaluation submitted April 17, 2014, he received "highly effective" marks in instructional practice. For the 2015 school year, he received an annual evaluation of "highly effective" for instructional practice, "effective" for student growth, "highly effective" for deliberate practice, and "highly effective" for evaluation level. Resp. Ex. 4. Classroom Incident on May 4, 2015 Respondent was teaching math to eighth-grade students in a portable building at Eagles Landing Middle School. Near the end of the lesson, Respondent became aware that two male students were engaged in horseplay with another student, J.G.1/ One of the two male students grabbed a water bottle from J.G. intent on annoying and/or harassing J.G. This horseplay caused the water bottle top to come off, resulting in water spewing on several of the boys and also dousing several school documents Respondent had on his desk. Upon seeing the mess that was created, Respondent stood up and screamed "I am fucking tired of this shit and I don't appreciate having my stuff destroyed." The comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Respondent then took the water bottle, walked to the back door of the classroom, and threw it outside. He then went back to his desk and, as he put it, "was stewing about what had happened." Sometime later, just before the end of the class period, Respondent noticed that one of the males had dropped his cell phone on the floor by his desk. Respondent walked over, bent down and picked up the phone, and put it in his pocket. Apparently, the student was not aware that Respondent had picked up his phone. Respondent admitted that he had taken the cell phone for the purpose of teaching the student a lesson and that he intended to hold on to it until dismissal. As he put it, "it would be nice to watch G.P. [the student who owned the phone] squirm for a little bit." When the dismissal bell rang, the student started looking frantically for his cell phone. At that point, J.G. went over to G.P. and told him that Respondent had his phone. This made Respondent angry. He stated that he felt that J.G. "had sabotaged his plans." Respondent raised his voice and began yelling at J.G. claiming that he had "sold him out" and why could he do such "an idiotic thing." There was conflicting evidence concerning whether or not any profanity was used by Respondent.2/ Respondent then followed J.G. outside the classroom and continued to berate him. Respondent used some other choice words against J.G. including calling him "stupid" and "idiotic." Respondent admitted that the May 4, 2015, incident was not the first time he used profanity in the classroom and that it was not the first time he ever become angry, or made any harsh comments to a student. J.G. testified by way of deposition taken on February 1, 2016. He claimed that when the water bottle incident occurred, Respondent was yelling in general.3/ J.G. testified that the conduct of Respondent shocked him and made him nervous because he had never seen a teacher react like that to anything. When J.G. told the other student that Respondent had his phone, Respondent started screaming at him and had a "melt down," as he described it. J.G.'s recollection of the event was fairly detailed and consistent. He said that Respondent called him "stupid," "retarded," and an "idiot." He cursed at J.G. using the F_ _ _ word, the S_ _ _ word, and accused J.G. of being a "F_ _ _ing idiot." When Respondent cursed at him, it made J.G. feel very shocked and embarrassed, particularly in front of the other students. He acknowledged, however, that this was the first time that Respondent ever got in his face and yelled or cursed at him. Notably, J.G. admitted that since the May 4, 2015, incident his academic career has been the same and that he is actually doing better this year, than last year. Also, after the incident on May 4, 2015, J.G. testified that much of the harassment decreased. Apparently, one of the male students involved in the incident received an in-school suspension for the name-calling incident and stayed away from J.G. The other student, as well, was not making fun of him like he had done previously. Several students, including the two male students involved, testified by way of their deposition transcripts. Each recalled the incident on May 4, 2015. The students each had a similar recollection of the basic events. They confirmed that Respondent got very upset, was screaming, and used some curse words and demeaning language. Several of the students acknowledged, in general, that the incident resulted in the classroom antics and horseplay subsiding. Each provided a written statement which was reviewed by the undersigned. Following the incident on May 4, 2015, Respondent was removed from the classroom, but was allowed to return to school on May 11, 2015, to begin teaching again. He taught until the end of that school year-–until approximately June 6, 2015. During the summer of 2015, Respondent received a letter from the principal reappointing him to his teaching position at Eagles Landing Middle School for the 2015-2016 school year. Approximately 11 days after the new school year began, Respondent was requested to attend a pre-disciplinary hearing relating to the May 4, 2015, incident. After the pre- disciplinary meeting, he was allowed to return to his classroom until October 9, 2015. In early October 2015, Respondent was directed to attend several Employee Assistance Program meetings. He attended four different sessions through November 4, 2015, when he was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board discipline Respondent with an unpaid suspension covering the period of time Respondent has been suspended from his teaching duties, but immediately reinstate him to his teaching duties. No back pay is recommended. The undersigned also recommends that Respondent be required to attend and successfully complete an anger management class after reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, 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 13th day of April, 2016.
