The Issue Did Respondent Mary Jane Nilsen violate the policies of Petitioner School Board of Highlands County (Board) and thereby justify a five-day suspension without pay?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Board is the county agency responsible for operating the public schools within the Highlands County School District as established in Chapter 228, Florida Statutes, including the hiring of, among other personnel, school bus drivers. Respondent has been employed in the Polk County School System as a school bus driver since 1991. Respondent is employed pursuant to an annual contract. Dr. Calvin Smith testified that if an employee such as Respondent has been employed by the Board for 3 continuous years, then that employee would be eligible for a continuing contract. Although Respondent had been employed continuously by the Board for more than 3 years, there was no evidence that Respondent had been granted a continuing contract by the Board which would require the Board to show just cause for disciplining Respondent. By letter dated June 11, 1996, Superintendent Farmer advised Respondent that he was recommending to the Board that she be suspended for five days without pay based on information submitted to him "by Mr. Roy Wright, Coordinator of Transportation, Mr. Calvin Smith, Director of Operations, and the recommendation of Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent." By letter dated June 11, 1996, Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent, advised Superintendent Farmer, based on the information submitted to him by Mr. Roy Wright and Calvin Smith, that he was recommending a five-day suspension without pay for Respondent. By letter dated June 6, 1996, Mr. Roy Wright advised Dr. Calvin Smith that he recommended a five-day suspension for Respondent. The letter in pertinent part provides: I am recommending that Mrs. Mary Jane Nilsen, a bus driver, be suspended from work without pay for five days. Mrs. Nilsen was involved in a confrontation with several other bus drivers in the Lake Placid compound on the morning of May 31. * * * Mrs. Nilsen has had several previous episodes of angry and belligerent behavior which have resulted in actions with the progressive discipline practice. The first such incident was October 21, 1994, when Mrs. Nilsen was given a verbal warning for a "loud, rude and very discourteous" exchange with her supervisor. . . . Also, in February of this year, I gave Mrs. Nilsen a written letter of reprimand for "belligerent, hostile and insubordinate" behavior toward the Area Transportation Manager and the Transportation Operations Supervisor. These actions took place during a conference with Mrs. Nilsen and several other drivers in the Lake Placid Transportation office. . . You will note that in my letter of February 28, I warned Mrs. Nilsen that a future incident could result in a five day suspension without pay. * * * Therefore, I am recommending her suspension without pay for five days consistent with the progressive discipline Provision of the negotiated agreement. (Emphasis furnished). A copy of this letter was forwarded to Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent, by Dr. Calvin Smith with a note that Dr. Smith concurred in Mr. Wright's recommendation. The letter of February 28, 1996, from Roy Wright to Respondent provides in pertinent part as follows: This letter is in reference to the meeting and discussion that you and several drivers had with Mrs. Carlene Varnes, Area Transportation Manager and Mrs. Shirley Higgins, Transportation Operations Manager on Monday morning February 26. You will consider that the outcome of Mrs. Hiagins and Mrs. Varnes discussion with you stands as a verbal warning. I am writing to you in order to emphasize the position of the department regarding your conduct. Your will refrain from the use of profanity at any time you are in the uniform of a Highlands County School Bus Driver, particularly when you are in the presence of other School Bus Drivers and School Board Employees. The incident at a local restaurant on Friday, February 23, occurred while you and other school bus drivers were in uniform. Other drivers present asked you to quiet down and stop the vulgar language. Your failure to do so created an intimidating, hostile and offensive situation which has a direct bearing on the work environment. . . The language and actions on your part also presented an unfavorable and unacceptable image which undermines the public's perception of school bus drivers as professionals. In addition, your reaction to the management staff when this matter was brought to your attention can only be described as belligerent, hostile and insubordinate. . . Your response to your immediate supervisor when she was investigating the matter and warning you of inappropriate conduct while in uniform was completely out of line. You may consider this a written reprimand for that action. You have now received a verbal warning and a written reprimand. The next incident may result in a five day suspension without pay. (Emphasis furnished). It appears that the verbal warning and written reprimand were based on the same incident. This letter does not mention the October 21, 1994, verbal warning. Respondent did not challenge the verbal warning given to her for the infraction observed on October 21, 1994. Likewise, Respondent did not challenge Mr. Wright's decision to issue a verbal warning and written reprimand for the infraction observed on February 26, 1996. Carlene Varnes, Area Transportation Manager at Lake Placid, gave Kala Barfield and two other bus drivers permission to wash their buses in the wash area of the bus compound at Lake Placid on May 31, 1966. The record is not clear, but apparently Barfield and the other bus drivers were allowed to wash their buses during the busy time of other bus drivers coming into the compound to park. On May 31, 1996, Barfield backed her bus into the wash area of the bus compound at Lake Placid. However, Barfield could not get her bus entirely into the wash area due to a vehicle (van) being parked in the wash area. Barfield made no attempt to have the owner move the vehicle. Also, at this same time Brenda Sullivan was fueling her bus which, along with Barfield washing her bus, created a situation where other bus drivers would have to carefully navigate between the two buses in order to park their buses. While Barfield was washing her bus and Sullivan was fueling her bus, Respondent entered the compound and pulled her bus "nose-to-nose" with Barfield's bus, leaving approximately 15 to 20 feet between the buses. Respondent testified that she made no attempt to navigate between Barfield's and Sullivan's buses while Sullivan was fueling her bus because Respondent had determined that her bus could not be navigated between the two buses without incident. With Respondent's bus parked as it was, all other buses entering the compound were unable to navigate around Respondent's bus and park. Therefore, once the area of the compound behind Respondent's bus was filled, other buses were forced to park on the road outside the compound. Respondent's action in this regard violated Board policy of not blocking buses in the compound and created a hazardous condition for those buses parked on the road. . Respondent was aware that buses entering the compound after her were unable to navigate past her bus and that bus traffic was "piling up" behind Respondent, creating a problem out in the road. Respondent was also aware of those bus drivers behind her attempting to get Respondent to move. Although Respondent may have believed that she could not navigate her bus around Barfield's and Sullivan's buses, she made no attempt to alleviate this hazardous situation by requesting another available bus driver or anyone else for assistance in navigating her bus around Barfield's and Sullivan's bus. The incident lasted approximately 10 to 20 minutes. Varnes was advised immediately of the situation, but due to an emergency with another bus driver, Varnes was unable to address this problem immediately. By the time Varnes was able to address the problem, Sullivan had finished fueling her bus and moved it. Upon Varnes coming on the scene, she told Respondent to move her bus and Respondent did so. However, Respondent parked her bus in backwards which created a problem for other buses attempting to get by. Upon being advised that her bus was incorrectly parked, Respondent corrected the situation. It is clear that Respondent did not like the idea of Barfield being allowed to wash her bus while other buses were attempting to park, and so expressed that view on May 31, 1996. As a result, Barfield attempted to discuss this matter with Respondent in a somewhat heated fashion, but Respondent boarded her bus and closed the door preventing any further conversation on the matter with Barfield.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for a period of 5 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1997, in Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Richard R. Farmer Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 9300 Sebring, Florida 33870-4098 James F. McCollum, Esquire Clay Oberhausen, Esquire 129 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 Mark Herdman, Esquire 34650 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began employment with Respondent as a school bus driver in December, 1975. School bus drivers are part of the bargaining unit with the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, and at all times material hereto, the collective bargaining agreement between this union and the Respondent provided that employees who had not returned to work for one year following an on the job injury could be terminated without prejudice. During 1981, Petitioner was injured on the job when he twisted his back falling off a school bus, and thereafter he was determined to be disabled, and received worker's compensation benefits. Because he felt he would never be able to return to his job as a school bus driver due to his injury, Petitioner settled his claim against Respondent resulting from his 1981 injury for a lump sum payment of $15,000. In 1983, Petitioner was released by his treating physician, and applied for reinstatement with Respondent. When Respondent did not initially reinstate him, Petitioner filed a handicap discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ultimately, Respondent did rehire Petitioner during 1983 as a school bus driver, but his salary was set at the beginning level without credit for his prior experience. Petitioner continued to work as a school bus driver after he was rehired in 1983, receiving excellent performance evaluations, until April, 1985, when the bus he was driving was hit by a truck that ran a red light. In attempting to get the bus under control after it was hit, Petitioner twisted and reinjured his back. He was not at fault in this accident. Thereafter, Petitioner was again determined to be disabled, and received worker's compensation benefits. One month after his second accident, Petitioner was released by his treating physician, Dr. Patrick J. Logue, and was allowed to return to work with Respondent in May, 1985. However, after attempting to drive a school bus, and perform the other duties of a driver, Petitioner decided he could not continue working. He determined he was not physically able to do his job. Thereupon, he was referred by worker's compensation to two additional physicians, Drs. Charles D. Nach and H. G. Siek, orthopedic surgeons licensed to practice in this State. Dr. Nach prepared a medical absence report after examining Petitioner on July 5, 1985, and concluded that Petitioner would be able to return to work on that date, July 5, 1985. Petitioner did not return to work, however, and began seeing Dr. Siek in August, 1985, as well as Dr. J. Baird, a physician at the Martha Stetson Health Center, on referral by the Respondent. Respondent's Rule 6Gx52-7.05, Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the examination of injured employees at this Health Center. Dr. Baird filed a report dated October 22, 1985, indicating Petitioner could return to work, but could not lift, bend, stoop, squat, pull or push. Dr. Siek concluded that Petitioner could return to work on November 5, 1985, but with no heavy lifting. On November 14, 1985, Respondent's Assistant Transportation Director, Walter Allison, prepared a detailed description of duties a school bus driver must perform, and requested that Petitioner allow his treating physician to review this description, and provide written verification of the fact that he could, in fact, perform these duties. The parties took, and introduced in evidence, the deposition of Dr. Siek wherein Dr. Siek testified that he had reviewed Allison's letter with Petitioner on November 18, 1985, and determined that he "didn't find that these prerequisites are too strenuous if he (Petitioner) felt they were within his capabilities." There is no evidence in the record, however, that Dr. Siek's conclusion on November 18 was ever conveyed to Walter Allison or any other representative of Respondent. In late November, 1985, Petition was referred to a "work hardening" program administered by Physical Capacities, Inc. This program is used by Respondent and other employers to prepare employees who have been off the job for some time for the physical demands of their jobs, and to avoid aggravating their conditions while increasing mobility and strength. It consists of a physical assessment, training and work simulation exercises. However, after only two days in the work hardening program, Petitioner quit the program, and refused to return. He felt the exercises were aggravating his condition. Thereafter, Petitioner resumed seeing Dr. Siek, and in April, 1986, Dr. Siek concluded that Petitioner could return to work, with light duty. However, Petitioner never insured that Dr. Siek provide Respondent with a response to Walter Allison's letter of November 14, 1985, which had clearly stated that once written verifications were received from Dr. Siek and Dr. Baird that Petitioner could perform the duties of a school bus driver, he would be permitted to return to work. Petitioner completed and filed Statements of Continuing Disability from January through June, 1986, on which he indicated he was unable to return to work due to his back and hip condition. In August, 1986, Petitioner began employment with the Upper Pinellas Association for Retarded Citizens (UPARC) as a bus driver, and has been continuously employed with UPARC to the present. On December 5, 1986, Petitioner and Respondent executed a Stipulation and Joint Petition for Lump Sum Payment of his worker's compensation claim arising from the April, 1985 accident. Under the terms of this agreement, Respondent released a lien which it had against Petitioner's recovery against the driver of the truck which hit the school bus. The lien was in the amount of $21,845.71, resulting from worker's compensation benefits paid by Respondent to Petitioner, which Respondent could have collected against the $40,000 recovery Petitioner received from the tortfeasor. The parties also stipulated that maximum medical improvement was reached on April 14, 1986. The Stipulation and Agreement was approved by the Deputy Commissioner for worker's compensation. On January 16, 1987, Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination against Respondent alleging that since April, 1986, he had been denied reemployment by the Respondent due to retaliation for his filing of an earlier complaint of handicap discrimination in 1983. After investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission made a determination of "no cause" concerning Petitioner's complaint, and Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief, resulting in this hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 29th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5285 The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order with Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 10-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 14-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 18-20. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 21. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 22-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 25. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 30-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 34-35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 38-49. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6, but otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 10, 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Moore, Esquire Gulf Coast Legal Services, Inc. 6 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Second Floor Clearwater, Florida 34616 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Kasha Brunson, and whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Maria Colina.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brunson has been employed by the School District since August 20, 1996. She is currently a bus attendant in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Brunson has had excellent performance evaluations. Ms. Colina has been employed by the School District since February 9, 2000. She is currently a bus operator in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Colina has had excellent performance evaluations. Both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPLAC) and the School Board. Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides: "Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause." The SPLAC agreement does not specifically define just cause, but Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides that allegations of misconduct and poor job performance, which could result in suspension without pay or termination of employment, could be investigated, and a recommendation for discipline could be made to the superintendent as a result of the investigation. Provision 7.11 of the SPLAC agreement provides: [D]isciplinary action(s) taken against SPLAC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the provisions of 7.10 of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Colina was the bus operator, and Ms. Brunson was the bus attendant on Bus 134. The bus was assigned to pick up exceptional education students on its morning route to East Lee County High School (East Lee County). The bus has approximately six rows of seats. On December 7, 2010, the bus had two stops for East Lee County and picked up students C.E., a female, and T.T., a male, for delivery to East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. are tenth-grade students; however, they are mentally delayed and function between a fourth and sixth-grade level. In late October 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been advised to keep C.E. and T.T. separated. The students were not to speak to one another, and they were not to sit together. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were not told the reason why they were to keep the students separated, and they both assumed the students had been involved in an argument. On December 7, 2010, the bus arrived at East Lee County approximately 15 minutes prior to the bell ringing. Ms. Brunson, Ms. Colina, and the two students remained on the bus while waiting for the school to open. T.T. was seated in a seat at the rear of the bus across from Ms. Brunson. C.E. was in a seat at the front of the bus directly behind Ms. Colina, five rows in front of Ms. Brunson. T.T. asked Ms. Brunson for permission to change the radio station. She gave permission, and T.T. got up and walked to the front of the bus where he changed the station on the on-board radio. In order to change the radio station, he had to reach across Ms. Colina. Instead of returning to his assigned seat, T.T. sat down next to C.E. in her seat. Neither Ms. Brunson nor Ms. Colina saw T.T. sit next to C.E. At some point, Ms. Brunson observed T.T. in the seat with C.E. She felt that something inappropriate was happening, and she called T.T. back to his seat. Ms. Brunson reported the incident to Dale Maybin (Mr. Maybin), her supervisor for that day, as soon as C.E. and T.T. left the bus. Later in the morning, she also advised Shannan Pugh (Ms. Pugh), who was the paraprofessional who was supervising C.E. and T.T. at their work site. She told Ms. Pugh that, when T.T. stood up from C.E.'s seat, she saw C.E.'s head "pop up." In addition to the East Lee County delivery, Bus 134 was assigned to a route for students at Manatee Elementary School (Manatee). The Manatee route began after the completion of the East Lee County route. On the morning of December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been assigned two additional students to the Manatee route beginning on December 9, 2010. At the time of the incident involving T.T. and C.E., both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina claim that they were doing paperwork related to the assignment of two new students. Bus drivers are given 15 minutes each morning and 15 minutes each afternoon to do a pre-trip inspection and to do paperwork. The paperwork involved in adding the two students to the bus route was minimal. The students' names would be added to the seating chart, and the students' names and I.D. numbers would be added to a Medicaid form. Once the bus arrived at Manatee where the students were to be delivered, the driver would receive additional information from the school and fill out a TR-1 form and get an emergency information card, which was to be placed in the bus. At the time of the incident on December 7, 2010, the only paperwork that needed to be done would be to add the names of the new students to the seating chart and to place the students' names and I.D. numbers on the Medicaid form. Although Ms. Colina had the responsibility of completing the paperwork, she and Ms. Brunson divided the paperwork. The longest time that it should have taken each person to do the paperwork was a couple of minutes. Respondents claim that they were unable to adequately supervise the students because of attending to paperwork is not credible. The amount of time that it would have taken to do the paperwork was minimal and should not have precluded Respondents from keeping an eye on the students. Additionally, Respondents should not have been doing their paperwork at the same time. Obviously, if both Respondents are doing paperwork at the same time, no one is watching the students. Because Respondents were doing paperwork does not relieve them of the responsibility of adequately supervising the students and keeping the students separated. The reason that C.E. and T.T. were separated stemmed from an incident in October 2010, when C.E. and T.T. had engaged in inappropriate activity during a work study program. C.E., T.T., and five other students were assigned to work off-campus at a grocery store. The students were supervised by two paraprofessionals from East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. left the area in the grocery store where they were assigned and went into the men's restroom together. C.E. admitted having sexual contact with T.T. while in the men's restroom. School officials changed the classroom and work study schedules of the two students to eliminate contact between the students. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were aware that C.E. and T.T. no longer went to the work site on the same days. No disciplinary actions were taken against the two paraprofessionals as a result of the incident at the grocery store. From late October 2010 to December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina kept C.E. and T.T. separated while on the bus, and the students did not engage in any inappropriate contact on the bus until the incident at issue. Respondents claim that they would have been more diligent in supervising the students if they had known that the reason that the students were being separated was for previous sexual misconduct. This reasoning for failure to adequately supervise is no excuse. Respondents should have adhered to their charge of keeping the students separated no matter the reason for the students being separated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that there is just cause to discipline Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina and suspending Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina without pay from March 8, 2011, to January 1, 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, 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 28th day of July, 2011.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, School Board of Hillsborough County, operated a school bus system for students attending the public schools run by it within the county. The program was and is administered by several different route coordinators who are authorized to hire the drivers for the buses operated on their routes. In September, 1985, Petitioner, William D. Gibbs, who had previously been working as a pipe fitter since 1972, applied for employment as a school bus driver in the Brandon area, for which Rosa Irene Barrow was the route coordinator. Mr. Gibbs could no longer perform the duties of a pipe fitter as a result of a work-related injury to his left knee incurred in 1984, but was fully capable of operating a bus. When he determined he could no longer work at his former trade, he began looking for other work, with a government agency, preferably, because of the benefits offered by most governmental employers. He applied for several county jobs and with the School Board with whose Job Line he kept in frequent contact. Mr. Gibbs submitted his written application for employment as a school bus driver in September, 1985, at which time he spoke with Ms. Barrow, discussing with her all aspects of his qualifications for employment as a school bus driver. One of the matters they discussed was the need for the applicant to have an appropriate place to park the bus when it was not in use. Petitioner assured her he had plenty of room to park it on the 9/10 acre grounds of the day care center his wife operated. Though Ms. Barrow claims she told Petitioner she didn't think a day care center was an appropriate place to park a school bus, it is found she made no comment to him regarding the suitability of the site he mentioned, nor did she give him any idea of whether or when he might be hired. Instead, she set up the required tests he had to take. Petitioner took and passed the required tests and was certified as qualified to drive a school bus. Several days later he spoke with Ms. Barrow who told him that they were not hiring drivers at that time, but to call back later on. Just about this same time, Mr. Gibbs also put in an application with the County's public bus system, (Heartline), and went to work there in January, 1986. He successfully completed his training program in February, 1986, and was assigned to work driving a bus, but quit before his probationary period was up because of abuse he received from his passengers and the danger of bodily harm. He was also accused of a fare impropriety but was later exonerated when the accusation against him was found to be based on a case of mistaken identity. When Mr. Gibbs left Heartline, he went to work for his wife at the child care center she operates, and still works there performing maintenance, running errands, working at the reception desk, and, periodically, driving the center's van. In May, 1986, he had another conversation with Ms. Barrow about his application for employment as a driver. Again he was advised that the county was not taking on any new school bus drivers. During the course of their conversation, Ms. Barrow asked Petitioner why he wanted to drive a school bus. Reportedly, she stated it was her experience that most men were not temperamentally suited to drive a school bus because they were over-aggressive in discipline. Ms. Barrow denies she said this, claiming that since he owned and operated a day care center, she felt he would be more likely to know what the problems were in dealing with children. If she did make that or a similar comment, however, she claims it was because the job is not for a lot of people and she tries to tell all her applicants that. In light of this and her testimony at hearing that she discusses with potential drivers the kind of behavior they can expect from the children, and the other less desirable working conditions which can be encountered, it is found that a comment such as is alleged by Petitioner could well have been made. In that regard, however, Petitioner admitted at hearing that the remark, instead of referring to "most" men, might have been "some" men. On this occasion, however, no judgement or other comment was made regarding Petitioner's proposed bus parking spot. After this second conversation with Ms. Barrow, Mr. Gibbs became suspicious of possible discrimination because of her comment about male temperament, but he had no real proof of that and did nothing. She again told him to call back in September, 1986, and when he did, he was met with the same response: they were not hiring but to call back in six months. When he did, he was again put off and told to call back at the end of the school year. This routine continued until he called in January, 1988, and spoke with Ms. Strickland, the route coordinator for another area, thinking chances of his success might be greater with another supervisor. When he identified himself and told her why he was calling, she told him that his September, 1985 application was no longer any good: employment applications were kept open only for 30 to 60 days, after which they are retired. Petitioner's application was kept on file, however, and was presented at the hearing in April, 1990. When, during discovery prior to hearing, Petitioner's counsel requested copies of all applications for driver positions from 1985 to the present, he was furnished with only those from 1989 to the present with the comment that all others were not available. Inquiry of administrative officials at the Board offices revealed such records were kept only one year before being retired and, apparently, no one could indicate where or under what conditions older documents were maintained. When Mr. Gibbs was told about his application by Ms. Strickland, feeling certain he was being discriminated against, he immediately filed his complaint of discrimination. Petitioner met, in his opinion, all the requirements to be a school bus driver. He lived in the area in which he proposed to drive; he was certified as a school bus driver; he passed all the tests given him; and, as he saw it, he had an appropriate place to park the bus. It is on this issue of an "appropriate" place to park that this matter turns. Ms. Barrow felt at the time of Petitioner's application, and believes to this day, that a child care center, with the frequency of ingress and egress traffic, and the presence of many young children, is not an appropriate place to manipulate and park a large bus. Even though she was initially mistaken as to the actual site in question, she had the correct site checked out by Mr. Saffold, her driver trainer and accident investigator, and checked it herself several times. Mr. Saffold, after numerous visits to the site, found it to be not appropriate for parking a bus due to the number of trees on the site and the other cars routinely parked there. In addition, there is a circular drive which gives little room for maneuvering. Ms. Strickland also went out to see Petitioner's site, and she, too, found it unacceptable for much the same reason cited by Mr. Saffold; the trees, the lack of maneuvering room, and the on- property traffic due to pick ups and drop offs. Ms. Barrow concluded that a day care center, with its heavy traffic of people coming and going, was not an appropriate place to park a 35 foot bus. She told Petitioner that he should find an "appropriate" parking place within a reasonable distance of his residence, such as at a church or other off-street facility. There is no central bus parking compound at Ms. Barrow's facility. There is, as Petitioner contends, ample space at the side of his facility to physically locate the bus when parked. That is not the basis for disapproval. The appropriateness of the site is, however, and the question of appropriateness is a subjective one with the decision on what qualifies and what does not left up to the route coordinator. Ms. Barrow, the coordinator for the area in which Petitioner applied, concluded the site proposed by Petitioner to park the bus was not appropriate. In this conclusion she was joined by another coordinator, Ms. Strickland, and a driver trainer and accident investigator, Mr. Saffold. In light of the evidence presented and the considerations pertaining, it cannot be said her conclusion was wrong. Within the Board's school bus operation, there are 12 route coordinators, none of whom are male, who supervise a total of in excess of 700 drivers. Within Ms. Barrow's area, she supervises 67 drivers, each of whom has between 2 and 4 daily runs. Each run is made up of 1, 2, or 3 schools. Drivers are hired, initially, as substitute drivers who fill in on an "as needed" basis for regular drivers. The substitute driver position is a part-time job which lasts for 10 instead of 12 months of the year. No set amount of working hours can be guaranteed. The average substitute driver works from 6.5 to 7.5 hours per day. Whereas regular drivers are guaranteed 6 hours work per day, substitute drivers get no guaranteed minimum and are paid only for the hours they actually drive. Substitute drivers may remain in that category for between 6 and 18 months. Regular drivers are hired from the ranks of substitute drivers. Driver criteria include a good driving record; completion of the 10th grade; and an "appropriate" place to park the bus. Board personnel consider the most critical of these to be the place to park the bus. It must be a safe, off- street location, and the problem of finding a suitable parking space is becoming more and more difficult. Of the 67 drivers under Ms. Barrow's supervision, 3 are male. During the 9 years she has served as a route coordinator, she has hired 3 or 4 male drivers. However, she gets very few male applicants and this is the basis for the low number of drivers. Ms. Strickland has 6 or 7 male drivers out of 68 full time and 11 substitute drivers. Of the applicants for drivers in her area, 3% to 4% are male. Mr. Saffold, who has worked for Ms. Barrow since March, 1981, has never found her to in any way discriminate against men. As a part of his job, he periodically goes out with the route coordinator to check on proposed parking sites for buses. On the 3 or 4 times he has done this, he has found the site to be inappropriate twice. Petitioner claims that the inappropriateness of his proposed parking site was not made an issue until after his complaint was filed. According to Mr. Saffold, it has been the continuing policy in Ms. Barrow's area to check the proposed parking site before giving the required tests to driver applicants. In the instant case, this was not done. Petitioner claims reimbursement for back pay. He filed his charge of discrimination on April 4, 1988. Any back pay due would then begin to accrue no earlier than April 3, 1986, two years prior to the filing of the charge. After being told there was no employment available for him at Respondent's Brandon bus barn, Petitioner took a job with the city bus line, Heartline, in January, 1986 and resigned in June, 1986. He earned $5.25 per hour during the entire time he was so employed. After leaving the city, he went to work at his wife's day care center where he earned $7.00 per hour and is still employed at $7.20 per hour. The job at Heartline, driving a city bus is clearly equivalent to that of driving a school bus. His duties at the day care center include periodic bus driving but is primarily of an administrative or maintenance nature and cannot reasonably be considered "substantially equivalent" to those of a school bus driver. Petitioner admits that after leaving Heartline, he did not inquire about or apply for other driving positions. Petitioner has requested attorney's fees and costs in the amounts of $22,500.00 and $1,471.85, respectively. Attorney LaPorte, testifying on behalf of Petitioner, indicated the Respondent's hourly fee of $150.00, when considered in light of his extensive experience and the considerable amount of research and preparation required herein, was not unreasonable. There was no evidence on the part of the Respondent to dispute Petitioner's claim and it is accepted as proven. The costs detailed in the exhibit attached to Respondent's post-hearing memorandum is also considered reasonable and is accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition For Relief, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2016 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Petitioner submitted two Proposed Recommended Orders - a long form and a short form. Both contain proposed findings of fact which are identical. The difference in Proposed Orders relates to the legal discussion which pertains to the proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings 1 - 12 related primarily to procedural matters leading up to the final hearing. Finding of Fact 13 consists of several paragraphs which, for the purposes of this discussion, shall be re-numbered 13(a) through 13(m). 13(a). Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact. The "concession" regarding liability appears to have been a part of proposed settlement negotiations and cannot be considered binding as to Findings of Fact after hearing which are based on evidence presented at the hearing. Attorney's fees are considered reasonable. 13(b). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13(c). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13(d). Accepted. 13(e). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13(f). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13 (g). Accepted and incorporated herein except for last sentence which is a restatement of evidence and not a Finding. 13 (h). Statistical information contained is accepted and incorporated herein. The balance, relating to the establishment of a prima facie case of discrimination is not a Finding of Fact, and is not supported by the evidence. 13(i) Rejected. 13(j). Accepted as to the facts but rejected as to Petitioner's conclusions as to the foundation for an adverse inference. 13(k). Accepted. 13(l). Accepted. 13(m). Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein to establish that Ms. Barrow made some comment about "some" or "most" men not being emotionally suited for drive a school bus. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Mackenzie, Esquire 17 McKendree Dr. Wesley Chapel, Florida 33544 Ronald W. Fraley Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
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 issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sarasota County School Board policy and the Code of Professional Conduct of Non-Instructional Support Staff employed by the Sarasota County School District and, if so, whether Respondent's employment with the Sarasota County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a political subdivision and an administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all public schools and personnel in the Sarasota County School District. Mr. Witt is the superintendent of schools for the Sarasota County School District. At all times relevant, Ms. Jones was employed with the School Board by contract as a school bus driver. In that capacity, Ms. Jones was classified as a non-professional and non-administrative contract employee of the School Board's transportation department. She agreed to accept the contractual appointment (school bus driver) to perform such duties and services as may be required to comply with all laws of the State of Florida and rules and regulations made by the School Board. The School Board's transportation department operated a bid policy for its school bus drivers. Under the School Board's bid policy, each school bus driver was afforded an opportunity to bid (make a written selection of a particular school bus route) on the school bus route for the forthcoming school year. At the start of the 2003-2004 school year, Ms. Jones bid upon and was awarded the Oak Park School (Oak Park) bus route. Oak Park was attended by elementary through high school-aged exceptional students or exceptional student education ("ESE") students, as defined under Section 4.12 of the School Board's policies manual. Ms. Jones was assigned bus number 9615. The first responsibility of the school bus driver is the safe operation of the school bus, and the second responsibility is providing discipline to those who are transported. In October of the 2003-2004 school year, Susan Snyder (Ms. Snyder) was assigned to work on school bus number 9615 as the school bus attendant. A school bus attendant's primary responsibilities are to ensure the safety of and provide care to the students that are being transported on the bus and to minimize distractions to the school bus driver caused by the students while being transported. The students who were being transported by Ms. Jones to Oak Park have behavioral issues, are physically handicapped, and/or have been unsuccessful at other schools within the Sarasota County School District. At various times during the 2003-2004 school year, between eight and 12 students between the ages 14 and 17 rode the bus driven by Ms. Jones. Four of those students were L.J., M.N., N.K., and J.M. The collective testimonies of these four witnesses established that they frequently used profanity on the bus in their daily conversations with each other and in their daily conversation, in the context of discipline, with Ms. Jones. The students would routinely yell among themselves and at Ms. Jones, and she, in return, would yell at them. When Ms. Jones told the students to do something, "sit down," "stop playing around," or "don't open the windows on the bus," the students refused to obey, and Ms. Jones would threaten the students with physical violence. Those threats would elicit like-kind responsive threats from the students. The evidence is inconclusive for the purpose of identifying specific profanity uttered by a specific student. However, the evidence is clear that an exchange of profanity occurred between Ms. Jones and the students identified in paragraph 4 hereinabove. At some unspecified time, but prior to December 9, 2003, Ms. Jones had previously and repeatedly instructed the students to leave the bus windows up while traveling. As they were traveling down Interstate 75 (I-75), N.K., ignoring Ms. Jones' previous instructions to leave the windows up, began lowering the window. Ms. Jones observed N.K.'s actions and repeated her instructions to leave the window up. She was unable to stop on the interstate, but when she reached the Fruitville, I-75 exit, Ms. Jones exited the interstate and stopped the bus. She then turned off the engine, got up from the driver's seat, and went to N.K.'s seat where she pushed N.K., and N.K. pushed her back. The shoving back and forth between Ms. Jones and N.K. ended with Ms. Jones slapping N.K. At the end of her bus run for that day, Ms. Jones reported the incident by a Student Discipline Referral Report. N.K. told his mother of the incident, and she informed Oak Park administration. After consideration of all the facts, Oak Park administration disciplined N.K. for his conduct on the bus. It is found that Ms. Jones willfully violated the School Board's policy by slapping N.K. The "Yugioh" playing cards incident The students would play a card game known as "Yugioh." The cards belonged to L.J. Ms. Jones had previously instructed the students not to play "Yugioh" on the bus because of the disturbance the game caused, and she specifically instructed L.J. not to bring his "Yugioh" cards on the bus. On December 9, 2003, L.J. and other students, with disregard of Ms. Jones' previous instruction not to play "Yugioh" on the bus, were again playing "Yugioh." Ms. Jones asked them to stop, and they ignored her. She asked L.J. to bring the cards to her, and he refused to obey her request. When she reached the stop sign at the intersection of South Briggs Avenue and Bahia Vista Street, in Sarasota County, Florida, Ms. Jones stopped the bus, turned off the engine, and approached L.J. where he was seated. An argument ensued, which was accompanied by Ms. Jones' attempt to take the cards from L.J. and his refusal to relinquish his cards. During this altercation, Ms. Jones struck L.J. about his head, shoulders, and face. She pinched his cheeks. L.J. and Ms. Jones exchanged vulgar insults back and forth. Ms. Jones told M.N., another student, to grab L.J.'s "titties" and pinch them, and he did so. It was noted that L.J. has a large body with an extraordinary fleshly chest. After the "tittie"-pinching incident, L.J. asked to be let off the bus at that location, which was not his usual bus stop, and Ms. Jones, as she returned to the driver's seat, initially refused to do so. After sitting in the driver's seat, Ms. Jones granted L.J.'s request to exit the bus at the intersection of South Briggs Avenue and Bahia Vista Street. It is found that Ms. Jones did not violate the School. Board's policy by permitting L.J. to get off the bus at a location other than his normal pick up and exit stop. Drivers are not allowed to prevent a student from getting off the bus; they can only call transportation dispatch and report the student by name and the location the student got off the bus. It is found that Ms. Jones did, however, violate the School Board's policy when she struck L.J. and when she requested and encouraged another student to inappropriately touch L.J.'s chest. When he arrived home, L.J. reported the bus incident to his parents, and they immediately registered a complaint against Ms. Jones with Oak Park administration. Two days later, December 11, 2003, L.J.'s father, L.J., Sr., filed a police report with the Sarasota County Sheriff's Department. An officer investigated the matter on December 19, 2003, by interviewing only L.J. and Ms. Snyder. Based upon those two interviews, the investigating officer recommended that the charge of battery be filed against Ms. Jones. There is no further evidence of record regarding the battery charge recommendation made by the investigating officer. The School Board's transportation dispatcher was informed of L.J.'s parents' complaint, and he radioed Ms. Jones and Ms. Snyder instructing them, upon completing the evening bus run, to report directly to his office and to give written reports of the L.J. incident. In her written report given immediately following the incident, Ms. Jones acknowledged that there was an exchange of profanity between her and the students involved, but she denied hitting L.J. or telling other students to pinch L.J.'s titties. The evidence of record reflects that Ms. Snyder did not dispute Ms. Jones' version of the incident. Ms. Snyder also executed a written incident report immediately following the incident containing her version of what occurred. According to the School Board, Ms. Snyder's initial written incident report was inexplicably lost. At the hearing, the School Board introduced an unsigned document (the School Board's Exhibit P-9) that was not sworn to by Ms. Snyder, purporting it to be a second revised report written by Ms. Snyder. This document is found to be unreliable. Later on the evening of December 9, 2003, after giving her written report that was somehow lost, Ms. Snyder called her Union representative and gave a description of what took place on the bus on December 9, 2003. A meeting was arranged with the director of transportation, Jody Dumas (Dumas). At the meeting, Ms. Snyder gave a version of the December 9, 2003, bus incident that was contrary to her earlier confirmation of Ms. Jones' December 9, 2003, written incident report. Ms. Snyder's recall of the December 9, 2003, incident alleged that Ms. Jones slapped and verbally abused and humiliated L.J. She went on to include a claim that Ms. Jones intimidated her and the students by telling everyone on the bus that they were to say nothing happened on December 9, 2003. Mr. Dumas conducted his investigation of Ms. Snyder's allegations by interviewing M.N. and J.M. on December 12, 2003. During the initial interview, M.N. confirmed Ms. Jones' version of the incident. Under the pressure of Mr. Dumas' continuous questioning, coupled with the promise that he would not be required to ride Ms. Jones' bus anytime in the future, M.N. capitulated and confirmed the "tittie"-pinching version of the incident and agreed with Ms. Snyder's "say nothing happened on December 9, 2003," addition to her version of the incident. It is found that Ms. Jones did in fact instruct another student to pinch L.J.'s titties, and the student, for reasons of his own, complied with the request while L.J. sat there humiliated. The evidence of record in support of Ms. Snyder's allegation that Ms. Jones intimidated her and all the students on the bus by telling them "say nothing happened on December 9, 2003," is unreliable and rejected by the undersigned. On December 10, 2003, Mr. Dumas suspended Ms. Jones with pay pending further investigation of the December 9, 2003, incident. Mr. Dumas, after his review of Ms. Snyder's version of what occurred and his interviews with unnamed students, met with Ms. Jones and confronted her with the "slapping and verbal abuse of [L.J.]" allegations. Ms. Jones denied slapping and verbally abusing L.J., at which time Mr. Dumas advised Ms. Jones that he would recommend her termination to the School Board. It is found that the suspension of Ms. Jones by Mr. Dumas was appropriate and in accordance with the School Board's policy. On December 19, 2003, in his memorandum to Scott Lempe (Mr. Lempe), director of human resources, Mr. Dumas set forth specific factual bases in support of his recommended termination of Ms. Jones: (1) Ms. Jones slapped L.J. at least two times in the face; (2) Ms. Jones told another student on the bus, M.N., to go over to L.J. and pinch his titties; and (3) on at least one other occasion, Ms. Jones told one student to slap another student because he was putting a window down. Mr. Lempe prepared a notice of termination on January 5, 2004, containing his detailed explanation of the grounds for the termination based upon Ms. Jones' violations of Section 5.30(2)(c) of the Sarasota County School Board policies manual, regarding corporal punishment and the Policy Manual, Code of Professional Conduct of Non-Instructional Support Staff, and Sections 1012.22 and 1012.27, Florida Statutes (2003), insubordination and misconduct in office. On February 18, 2004, the School Board terminated the employment of Ms. Jones with its transportation department as a school bus driver. The School Board proved, by a preponderance of credible evidence, that Ms. Jones violated the School Board's policy and the Code of Professional Conduct of Non-Instructional Support Staff employed by the Sarasota County School District, as alleged in the notice of termination dated February 18, 2004.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Sarasota County School Board, enter a final order terminating the contractual employment of Respondent, Nancy Jones. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Appalachia 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 19th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Bowman, George, Scheb, Toale & Robinson 2750 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Nancy Jones 1280 Highland Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 Gene Witt, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3304 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment contract due to repeated acts of harassment, gross insubordination, and violations of Petitioner's policies.
Findings Of Fact Until her last day of work on March 15, 2004, Respondent had worked for over 13 years at Stanley Switlik Elementary School (Switlik) in Marathon. Switlik is a public school. For most of her career with Petitioner, Respondent worked as an aid in the exceptional student education (ESE) prekindergarten program. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent worked as a 1:1 aid to a student in a varying exceptionalities class. At all material times, Respondent was classified as noncertified instructional staff. For at least the past couple of years, Respondent was dissatisfied by much of what took place around her at work and in the local education community. In the past two years, Respondent has filed complaints with three federal agencies (Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), two state agencies (Department of Education and Department of Children and Family Services), and one local agency (Petitioner). The 13 subjects of these complaints include two principals of Switlik, two superintendents of Monroe County Public Schools, various teachers and teacher aids, and a relative of her husband. The record discloses no basis for finding any merit whatsoever in any of these complaints. In June 2002, Respondent walked into a classroom at the Grace Jones Day Care Center, which is a not-for-profit school in Respondent’s neighborhood, and entered a class with sleeping preschool children. Respondent approached the new director of Grace Jones and confronted her about the school's curriculum. The bewildered director spoke to Respondent for a few moments before realizing that Respondent had no children at the school. In the ensuing weeks, Respondent continued to challenge the director about the school’s curriculum, warning her that she needed to change the curriculum or Respondent would shut down the school. One time, Respondent warned the director that “you better watch your white ass.” Seeing the director smoking a cigarette on school grounds during breaks, Respondent began videotaping the director from the street to document what Respondent viewed as illegal behavior. The purpose of Respondent’s actions is unclear, but does not seem to have been the betterment of the educational program at Grace Jones. When children in the custody of a relative of her husband attended Grace Jones, Respondent never volunteered to help at the school. However unclear the purpose of Respondent’s actions, their effect was to frighten the director, the teachers, and the students and disrupt the educational process at the school. The director eventually obtained a judicial order prohibiting Respondent from trespassing onto the Grace Jones grounds. Respondent repeatedly involved herself with the education of the two children who were in the custody of a relative of Respondent's husband. When one of the children was later attending Switlik, while Respondent was employed at the school, Respondent telephoned the child’s guardian and informed her that the child had been misbehaving in school. When the guardian called the principal, the principal stated that the child had not been misbehaving. Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion directly to the child’s guardian. Later, in January 2004, Respondent informed the guardian and the guardian’s sister, who is the biological mother of the children, that Switlik was failing one of the children. Again, Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion. Despite receiving a warning from the principal not to disclose confidential student information, Respondent continued to try to obtain educational information about these children, even though she had no right to such information. Frustrated that the guardian would not remove one or both of the children from Switlik, Respondent threatened to call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use. Although she may never have followed through on this threat, she did call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the children’s biological mother was residing with them and the guardian, evidently in violation of some sort of prohibition against this living arrangement. The record permits no findings as to whether the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use or the biological mother was residing with her children and the guardian, but the record permits the finding that, in both cases, the intention of Respondent in threatening to call or calling the authorities was not to correct an intolerable situation, but was to coerce the guardian to accede to Respondent's demands. While employed at Switlik, Respondent had numerous confrontations with numerous employees, including superiors. Two of the more prominent confrontations involved Respondent’s confrontation with a school bus driver, who occupied a managerial role at Switlik as to transportation, and two aids, who worked in a Head Start prekindergarten classroom at Switlik. These incidents occurred during the 2002-03 school year. The problem with the school bus driver began in 2002. Escorting one or more children to or from the school buses, as was her responsibility, Respondent entered a bus loaded with children and began directing them to sit down. When the bus driver, who was on the bus, told Respondent to leave the bus, Respondent angrily accused the bus driver of failing to discharge her duty to protect the safety of the children. After receiving complaints from the driver about Respondent and from Respondent about the driver and the students standing in the bus, the principal met with Respondent and told her not to interfere with the bus driver and her supervision of the students already on the bus. Despite the warning, Respondent later engaged in a nearly identical confrontation during the 2002-03 school year. When the principal sided again with the bus driver, Respondent demanded a meeting with the superintendent to discuss her problems with the bus driver and, now, the principal. Ignored by the superintendent, Respondent contacted a school board member and asked for a meeting. Obtaining no satisfaction from the school board member, Respondent contacted the United States Department of Education, Civil Rights Office, and Florida Department of Education with her complaints about the bus driver and the refusal of Petitioner's representatives to resolve the situation. The problem with the Head Start aids initially involved their choice of classroom attire. They wore shorts, which Respondent considered to be cut too short. Possibly arising out of Respondent's frustration at not being allowed to wear a head scarf at school, Respondent complained to the principal that the two women were allowed to wear shorts. A picture of the shorts revealed that they were not suggestive or inappropriate in length or style. To the contrary, shorts permitted the aids to perform the physical activity imposed upon them in working with young children. After Respondent complained about the aids' shorts, the aids began to lock the classroom door to prevent Respondent from taking a short-cut through the room when students were present. Respondent complained about this, but, again, the principal sided with the aids and directed Respondent to stop cutting through the occupied classroom--a directive that Respondent repeatedly ignored. Twice bested by the aids, Respondent pressed her complaints about them to higher authorities. Respondent informed the Monroe County director of Head Start of the problem. When the county director referred Respondent back to the principal, Respondent threatened to contact the Southeast Director of Head Start in Atlanta and government representatives in Washington. On October 8, 2003, the principal and other of Respondent's employees, including the Human Relations Director, participated in a meeting requested by Respondent to discuss her concerns about events that had taken place at Switlik over a period of time. At some point, the principal warned Respondent about her disruption of the school environment and her confrontational behavior. The principal warned that Respondent's unprofessional behavior would lead to termination. Respondent became belligerent and loudly denounced the Human Relations Director as a liar. Two days later, Respondent refused to sign a memorandum outlining what had taken place at the meeting. The above incidents are largely drawn from Respondent's testimony. However, there were numerous other confrontations, such as with an office manager who asked that Respondent wait a moment before the woman could get her paycheck or repeated abuse of school email to hector Petitioner's employees. There were also numerous other examples of insubordination, such as Respondent's refusal to sign a statement acknowledging Petitioner's anti-harassment policy and her refusal to sign her evaluation at the end of the 2002-03 school year, which warned that her noncompliance with Petitioner's policies was disrupting school operations. Dissatisfied with the resolution of all of these matters, Respondent also filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about at least some of them. Two principals over several years have tried patiently to counsel Respondent regarding her strident, uncooperative behavior. At meetings, Respondent routinely took the offensive, yelling and denouncing the participants by, among other things, claiming that the current principal was not doing her job. An endless pattern of complaints about problems perceived by no one but Respondent preceded complaints about never-commenced or incorrectly resolved investigations. The disruption upon the educational process was evident and substantial. Respondent has not been chastened by less severe job actions than termination. When Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days from April 30 to May 2, 2003, Respondent's response, upon her return to work, was to file a complaint about the principal and, after a month of inaction on her complaint, to email the superintendent and demand to know the status of his investigation of her complaint. Failing to obtain a satisfactory response from the superintendent, Respondent submitted complaints about the principal and superintendent to the Florida Department of Education. Finally, on August 14, 2003, Respondent emailed the School Board members and asked for a meeting about this problem. By undated letter in February or March 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised Respondent that she was suspended with pay until the School Board meeting of April 1, 2004, at which he would recommend termination. The letter states that Respondent has violated Sections 1012.27(5) and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, The Code of Ethics for Education Professionals, and Petitioner's policies 6.37, 6.38, 2.70, 3.40, and 5.70. By letter dated March 22, 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised that he would recommend at the April 1 School Board meeting that it convert Respondent's suspension with pay to a suspension without pay, pending final action on his recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment. Petitioner's policy 6.37 provides that Petitioner's superintendent may suspend an employee until the next meeting of the School Board. The policy provides a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to any employee who has a property interest in his or her job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John Padget, Superintendent Monroe County School Board Post Office Box 1788 Key West, Florida 33041-1788 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Scott E. Siverson Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Scott C. Black Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner School Board should terminate Respondent's employment because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the letters of Termination dated April 2, 1996 and May 6, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, School Board of Sarasota County, (Board), operated a system of school busses to transport students to and from the public schools operated by and within the county. The Respondent, George James Bock, was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver and was assigned to drive bus number 9101. Sometime in January 1996, but prior to January 10, while in the process of picking up children at Englewood Elementary School for the purpose of transporting them to their homes at the end of the school day, Respondent had trouble getting his bus started when it was parked near the school and the children were aboard. He was, at the time, observed by Marcia Strickland, a pre-school teacher's aide, whose job it was to see the children onto the buses in the afternoon after school. Ms. Strickland saw Respondent get up out of his driver's seat, and she got onto the bus to see if he needed any help. She saw Respondent go to the back of the bus and do something she could not see and then return to his seat. When he thereafter tried to start the bus it started and he drove off. Respondent and Ms. Strickland did not have a conversation during this period which lasted about a minute, nor did she see him attempt to use his radio. On the morning of January 12, 1996, Respondent had the usual responsibility to pick up students attending Venice Middle School and transport them to school. When they had been delivered without incident, he had some time to spare before he was to pick up the elementary school children to be transported to their school, Englewood Elementary. In the interim between runs, it was his practice to drive the empty bus to the old K-Mart parking lot near Venice where he would park his bus in the company of other school bus drivers who were also between runs, and he did so on this particular day. The middle school run went off without difficulty, however, during the run a buzzer went off in the bus several times. This was not an unusual occasion as it frequently happens when the bus passes over a bump in the road at US highway 41 as he deadheads from the first to the second run. The weather was inclement on the day in question and appears to have been quite wet. Respondent did not leave his bus while it was in the parking lot nor did he speak with any of the other drivers. When it became time for Respondent to leave the K-Mart lot for his second run, he was unable to get the bus started. He attempted to do so for several minutes but the bus would not start. He checked all doors and exits of the bus to insure none of them were insecure but all was well. He also checked to insure the bus was in neutral and it was. Notwithstanding all he tried, Respondent was unable to get the bus started. Finally, he discovered a problem with a lock on the back door which he tried to fix unsuccessfully, and he attempted to call in to his dispatcher by radio to advise that because of his problem he would be late on his run, but his efforts to raise central or other drivers were also unsuccessful. Respondent ultimately got the bus started, but by that time he was late and only one child was still waiting for pick-up. He subsequently determined that some of the parents of the students who ordinarily rode on his bus made the pick-up and took the children to school when it appeared he would be late. Each bus driver is furnished with a pre-trip log book which he or she is required to fill out regarding each trip. The book for Respondent's bus on January 12, 1996, and for every school day in January 1996 prior to that date reflects every item marked OK for both the morning and afternoon runs, and no item is identified as having been a problem. The page is signed by the Respondent. Respondent indicates he didn't make any notations in the log book about the door buzzer going off because there were no problems at 6:45 AM when he filled out the log. The problem with the buzzer normally did not prevent him from starting the bus except for one time approximately two weeks previously. This must have been the incident referred to by Ms. Strickland. Though Respondent did not make any entries in the bus log regarding this problem he did fill out an incident report regarding it and a driver's repair request regarding the problem. The incident report bears the improper date of January 10, 1996, but this was explained by Respondent as being merely his error when he filled out the report on January 12. This explanation is accepted. The bus was checked out by Wendell Prior, a lead mechanic with the School Board's Taylor Ranch compound from which Respondent operates. Mr. Prior also conducts monthly safety inspections of the busses assigned to his shop and corrects problems reported to him. He is certified as an ASE certified mechanic and has attended several schools to keep his skills current. Mr. Prior, along with an assistant mechanic, thoroughly checked out the Respondent's report regarding the buzzer on bus 9101 which reportedly caused the bus not to start. He also checked the radio which Respondent had reported as faulty. Neither Prior or the other mechanic was able to duplicate Respondent's problem or find any defect which would prevent the bus from starting. They saw no foreign material and found no evidence of attempted repairs. Mr. Prior also checked out the bus' battery system and found it to be working properly. As a result of all his efforts to find something wrong or recreate the problem allegedly experienced by Respondent, Mr. Prior could find no defects and he has made no repairs to the bus buzzer system since that time. Prior also tried out the radio, which is one of the more powerful bus radios used in the system, and though he was unable to reach central dispatch, he was able to reach other busses clearly. He could find no problem with the radio. Though it may seem improbable, there is no major inconsistency between the testimony of Mr. Bock and that of Mr. Prior. Other bus drivers testifying for the Respondent indicated that the area where the buses congregate during the hiatus between runs is a difficult area for radio reception. These drivers have been able to reach other busses in the area but not the central dispatch radio from that site. In addition, Mr. Wass, formerly a school bus driver and an individual with extensive experience in engineering and automotive electrical systems, has also experienced problems with the back door of the school bus he drove which prevented the bus from starting. He determined that the back door cut-off latch frequently moves while the bus is in motion, and when the bus is subsequently turned off, it cannot be restarted with the latch in that position. He has also experienced intermittent circuitry problems with his bus which was aggravated by wet weather. Taken together, the evidence indicates with regard to this allegation that in fact Respondent was late for the second run to Englewood Elementary School because of mechanical or electrical problems with his bus which were intermittent and beyond his control. His failure to contact central dispatch so that alternative arrangements could be made to transport his students was occasioned by his failure to raise central by radio due to a blind spot for transmission at the location where he was parked and unable to start the bus. To be sure, he probably could have relayed a notification to central through another bus driver, which ability to do so was indicated by the other drivers. However, Respondent claims he tried and was unable even to reach another driver. Respondent was charged with a failure to make the run on time, not a failure to call in to central. Petitioner's allegations that interim stops at the shopping center were not authorized is irrelevant to the issue herein. In any case, the evidence tends to indicate that such practice was wide-spread among the drivers and was accepted by the system managers. As a result of the Respondent's failure to pick up the elementary school children on time on January 12, 1996, on January 15, 1996, the parent of one of the children on the run in issue wrote a letter to Mr. Girard, the supervisor of all official transportation for the school system, complaining of the Respondent's failure to make the pick up on time. This mother, who provided transport for several of the stranded children that morning, claimed to have found the bus parked in the K-Mart parking lot, and when she sounded her horn, Respondent rose up from one of the middle seats on the bus and went to the driver's seat. The following day, the principal at Englewood Elementary School wrote to Mr. Girard complaining of the failed pick-up on January 12, and raised the question of whether Respondent had been sleeping, citing other instances of Respondent's inappropriate performance of his duties, none of which are relevant to the issues herein. Because of these complaints, on March 18, 1996, Mr. Girard forwarded a memorandum to Gerald Padfield, the Board's Supervisor of Personnel, informing him that a decision had been reached to proceed with disciplinary action consistent with the terms of the union contract. In his letter, Mr. Girard cites several prior actions taken with regard to the Respondent and which includes two previous letters of instruction, a verbal and a written reprimand, and a three-day suspension. Respondent contends that the two letters of instruction were not disciplinary action, but were imposed to correct improper performance on his part. The three day suspension was brought to arbitration upon Respondent's filing of a grievance. While grounds for discipline were found to exist, the three-day suspension was reduced to a one day suspension. It should also be noted that Mr. Girard's letter contains several inaccuracies as to dates of incidents and/or corrective action. For the most part, however, the document demonstrates that the Board has followed a course of progressive discipline in its dealings with the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibit C is a document which outlines in detail the disciplinary history of the Respondent and which includes the formal actions previously cited. In addition, however, there is evidence of other incidents involving Respondent concerning which incidents complaints were received by the Board and for which non-disciplinary action was taken by administration personnel. These instances of uncharged activity by the Respondent have no bearing on the instant determination of whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the cases in issue but were admitted solely for the purpose of establishing that the Board had followed a policy of progressive discipline in its dealings with the Respondent. Mr. Bock is a member of the classified bargaining unit represented by the local teacher's union which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Board. Article XXII of that agreement provides for the use of progressive discipline except in emergency or flagrant violation situations. Pertinent hereto is the agreement definition of progressive discipline which calls for termination as the next step after suspension with or without pay. On March 5, 1996, Marge Sams, a safety facilitator with the Board's transportation department, located at the Taylor Ranch bus compound, while in a conversation with another bus driver, observed Respondent smoking a cigarette while he was standing in front of a school bus which was parked by a fuel pump. She could tell Respondent was smoking by the movement of his hand to his mouth and a puff of white which appeared immediately thereafter. She started out the door to tell him not to smoke there when he threw the cigarette to the ground and crushed it out with his foot. He came toward her, and when she started to ask him not to smoke near the fuel pumps, he barely acknowledged her and passed by her out the other door to where he met two other people. A permitted smoking area is located just outside the bus office building at which a picnic table and benches are located. A butt can is located on the table for the use of smokers. While this smoking area is in the general vicinity of the fueling pumps, it is not located adjacent to the pumps and does not create a safety hazard as would smoking at the pumps. Located at the pump service island where Respondent was seen smoking is a reasonably large, easily readable blue and white sign which clearly indicates that no smoking is permitted at the pump during fueling operations, by order of the state fire marshal. These signs were in place on March 5, 1996. The pump just below and to the side of the aforementioned sign bears the indication that it contains diesel fuel. It should also be noted, however, that next to the building, just outside the office, at some point in time, was located an open flame space heater. Ms. Sams' observation of the Respondent on March 5, 1996 was, by her own admission, very brief and she was not paying close attention to him. It was the puff of white smoke which caught her attention and caused her to go outside right away. Ms. Sams does not know what Respondent was doing at the pump at the time. His job during that period was to wash busses and he might have been doing that. However, she is very sure that at the time she observed the respondent smoking at the pump island, there were other busses fueling there. In her capacity of safety facilitator at the Taylor Ranch compound Ms. Sams is responsible for setting policy, and though she is not sure, she believes the policy against smoking is written down. It is a matter of judgement and compliance with the general orders of the state fire marshal. Though she was unwilling to define what is a safe distance from a pump to smoke, in this case she observed the respondent smoking in an area immediately contiguous to where two other busses were being fueled, well within 15 to 20 feet of them, and she is satisfied that is not safe. Mr. Bock does not deny smoking at the time and place alleged in the charging letter, but does deny ever smoking during fueling operations. Based on her observation of Respondent on March 5, 1996, Ms. Sams drafted a written memorandum to Mr. Girard, the Board's bus business manager, reporting what she had observed. While she admits that memorandum does not reflect fuel was being dispensed at the time and agrees such a comment should have been included, she is sure fuel was being dispensed. It is so found. It is also found that many drivers and compound personnel smoke at the picnic table outside the bus office, even while fuel is being dispensed at the pump and neither Respondent nor Mr. Prior has ever heard anyone say anything about that. When Mr. Girard received the report of Respondent's late pick-up on January 12, 1996, he immediately caused the allegation to be looked into. Based on the report that Respondent had had bus trouble, Mr. Girard, the same day as the incident, also had that looked into, and when nothing wrong could be found with the bus, he released it for the afternoon run. According to Mr. Girard, when a bus driver has problems with his run, he is supposed to radio in or call by phone to bus central so that children are not left standing at a bus stop. He admits that from time to time communications problems exist in that certain areas of the county are dead areas for radio transmissions. In addition, some of the buses have smaller radios than others and do not have adequate power to reach central from all areas serviced. Respondent's bus, however, had one of the bigger radios which should have been able to reach central. Other evidence of record, however, has confirmed the existence of dead areas, and, conceivably, Respondent was in such an area when he was unable to get the bus started. However, he could have called another bus and requested his message be relayed, or he could have used a phone line to call in. He did neither even though the Board's policy on calling in was discussed with Respondent prior to January 12, 1996 and at the time he was advised he should lay over on school board property. This information is contained in a written memorandum dated May 3, 1993 from the Board's director of transportation to all bus drivers. However, neither the failure to call in nor the layover at an unauthorized location was charged. As a result of the smoking incident, when added to Respondent's prior record, on January 30, 1996, Mr. Girard advised Respondent in writing that a meeting was scheduled to discuss this matter on January 31, 1996. However, the meeting was rescheduled for February 7, 1996 at Respondent's request. When the meeting was held, Girard and Respondent discussed what disciplinary action would be taken consistent with the progressive discipline policy called for in the collective bargaining agreement. The Respondent's disciplinary file with the Board reflects a Memorandum of Instruction administered on January 22, 1991 and a Letter of Instructions issued on December 12, 1991. These documents clearly indicate on their face that they are not disciplinary, however. Nonetheless, Respondent was also administered a verbal reprimand on February 3, 1992, followed by a written reprimand administered on April 7, 1992. In addition, Respondent was administered a three day suspension in the latter part of 1995 for smoking on his bus. Respondent grieved this action and the matter went to arbitration where the arbitrator's Decision and Award dated August 27, 1996 upheld the imposition of a suspension but reduced the term from three days to one day. Because of the Respondent's disciplinary record, Mr. Girard recommended termination of Respondent's employment to the superintendent who accepted that recommendation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Sarasota County reject the recommendation of the Superintendent regarding the alleged incident on January 12, 1996 and dismiss the charge, but accept the Superintendent's recommendation regarding the allegation of inappropriate smoking and enter an order terminating the employment of George James Bock with the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur S. Hardy, Esquire Matthews, Hutton and Eastmoore Post Office Box 49377 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Charles L. Scalise, Esquire West Russell Snyder, P.A. 355 West Venice Avenue Venice, Florida 34285 Thomas H. Gaul, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3331 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Educatin The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Seminole County School Board (Respondent) engaged in disparate treatment of Valeria Gaskin (Petitioner) such that the treatment of Petitioner constituted gender discrimination that resulted in a constructive discharge of Petitioner from her position with the school district.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was hired by Respondent on November 25, 1991, as a school bus driver. At all times material to this case, Petitioner’s performance of her duties as a school bus driver relate to the ultimate issues of law and fact to be resolved. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement entitled “Agreement with the Seminole County Bus Drivers’ Association, Inc. and the School Board of Seminole County (union contract).” Respondent is the entity charged by law to operate the School District of Seminole County, Florida, and in that capacity entered into the union contract. Petitioner was charged with the responsibility of reading the union contract and complying with its terms. Petitioner acknowledged that she was directed to review the contract and familiarize herself with it not less than annually. The union contract required Petitioner to comply with school board policies related to her employment duties. Kenneth Lewis is Respondent’s Director of Transportation under whose leadership all school buses are operated and maintained. In the structure of the Transportation Department, Mr. Lewis is followed by Julie Murphy, Assistant Director of Transportation, who, in turn, supervises Area Managers who perform the daily supervision of bus drivers. At all times material to this matter, Kathy Dent was the Area Manager under whom Petitioner served. It is undisputed that Respondent’s policy prohibits the use of cell phones while driving a school bus. All school bus drivers are made aware of the policy and the policy is reiterated in the Transportation Handbook (handbook) and is discussed repeatedly throughout the school year during department meetings. Petitioner acknowledged that she was provided a handbook and knew that Respondent’s policy prohibited the use of cell phones by school bus drivers while on a school bus. On or about October 3, 2007, Ms. Dent met with the bus drivers under her charge (including Petitioner) to remind them of the policy against cell phone use while on school buses. On November 30, 2007, Ms. Dent met with Petitioner individually to advise her again that cell phone use was not permitted while driving a school bus. On January 17, 2008, Petitioner was involved in a vehicular accident and was talking on a cell phone at the time of the crash. Petitioner acknowledged that she was using a cell phone while driving on January 17, 2008, and that such use violated school board policy. In fact, because Petitioner’s school bus carried a digital video camera that recorded Petitioner’s actions on January 17, 2008, Petitioner knew that she could be terminated for cell phone use while driving a school bus. More specifically, at the time of the accident the video captured Petitioner exclaiming, "I’m going to lose my job because I’m on the cell phone." Subsequent to the accident Petitioner was on workers’ compensation/leave but returned to work to face a five-day suspension without pay for her violation of the cell phone policy. The letter advising Petitioner of the proposed punishment clearly indicated that the recommendation for a five- day suspension without pay from the Transportation Department would be forwarded to the school superintendent for review and action. The school superintendent accepted the recommendation and Petitioner was advised that she would serve the unpaid suspension on May 13, 14, 20, 21, and June 3, 2008. These were the first dates available after Petitioner returned to work. On May 7, 2008, a date that Petitioner was driving her bus on her designated route, a student complained that an ipod had been stolen. To attempt to solve the complaint, a law enforcement officer requested that the Transportation Department pull the video from Petitioner’s bus to see if it could reveal who might have taken the device. To that end, Assistant Director Murphy contacted Ms. Dent to ask her to retrieve the video and review it for the purpose requested. Ms. Dent pulled the video hard drive from Petitioner’s bus and viewed the footage for the purpose directed. Ms. Dent discovered conduct she had not expected. First, the video clearly showed that Petitioner continued to use her cell phone while on the school bus. Even in the face of her impending suspension, Petitioner disregarded the school board policy and the directives from her supervisor. Petitioner continued to talk on a cell phone while on the school bus. Second, the video clearly showed unbecoming conduct between Petitioner and another school bus driver, William Boone. During the video Mr. Boone can be seen approaching Petitioner while she is seated at the driver’s position, place his hand and arm under her skirt for an extended period of time, and then later giving her an unspecified amount of money before departing. This conduct occurred while Petitioner was in line awaiting the start of her bus duties. Students were not on the bus at the time. Given the unexpected discoveries on the video, both Petitioner and Mr. Boone were called to the transportation office to meet with Mr. Lewis. Beforehand, however, the video from Mr. Boone’s bus was retrieved to determine if any inappropriate conduct could be seen on it. The video did not disclose any such conduct. Mr. Boone was not observed using a cell phone while on his bus and no additional unbecoming conduct was depicted. On May 9, 2008, a meeting was conducted with Petitioner, Ms. Murphy, Ms. Dent, and Mr. Boone. Later Mr. Lewis joined the group. Petitioner and Mr. Boone were advised that their unbecoming conduct had been captured by the bus video. Additionally, Petitioner was advised that her continued use of a cell phone while on the school bus had also been shown on the video. The video spoke for itself. The video contained irrefutable evidence of the conduct described above. Petitioner and Mr. Boone were given the opportunity to see the video for themselves. Both employees displayed embarrassment and concern. Mr. Lewis advised Petitioner that her continued use of the cell phone was in violation of the school board policy and advised both employees that the unbecoming conduct that appeared to be of a sexual nature was also not acceptable. At some point Petitioner claimed that she and Mr. Boone had been involved in a romantic relationship for an extended period of time. Mr. Boone expressed concern that his wife would find out about the incident. Mr. Boone denied that he was engaged in sexual conduct but accepted that it appeared that way. Further, Mr. Boone who held a previously untarnished personnel record did not want to lose his job. Mr. Lewis advised both Mr. Boone and Petitioner that he would likely recommend termination for both of them. He did not ask for their resignations, did not attempt to intimidate them in any manner, but expressed concern at their lack of judgment. As to Petitioner, since the video depicted her continued use of the cell phone (an act not applicable to Mr. Boone), Mr. Lewis expressed serious issue with Petitioner’s behavior. Nevertheless, no one demanded that Petitioner resign her position with the school district. Later in the day, Petitioner and her union representative met with Mr. Lewis to review the allegations. Since Mr. Lewis did not change his position and the union did not seem supportive of her cause, Petitioner became upset. Ms. Murphy offered to speak to Mr. Lewis on Petitioner’s behalf to see if she would be eligible for another employment position within the school district. Petitioner was afforded additional opportunities to meet with her union representative and to determine what, if any, response she would make regarding the allegations. At that point in time, Petitioner knew or should have known that the conduct depicted on the bus video would lead to the recommendation from Mr. Lewis to the school superintendent that Petitioner’s employment as a bus driver be terminated. Petitioner knew or should have known based upon the previous disciplinary action against her that her supervisors could not take disciplinary action against her based upon their authority. Moreover, for Petitioner to be terminated, the school superintendent would have to make the recommendation to the school board for its action. In this case, that recommendation never happened. Instead, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Ms. Murphy. Additionally, Petitioner stated to Ms. Murphy that she did not want Ms. Murphy to look for another employment opportunity within the school district for her. Petitioner’s letter of resignation selected May 30, 2008, as its effective date. It is undisputed that Petitioner continued to use a cell phone in violation of the school board policy despite being aware of the consequences for violation of the policy. Mr. Boone also faced disciplinary action for his part in the recorded conduct. As previously indicated, Mr. Boone had an unblemished record with the school district prior to the conduct described in this cause. He had worked for the school district almost 20 years without serious incident of any kind. Ultimately, Mr. Reichert, the Executive Director of Human Resources and Professional Standards for the Respondent, determined that there was insufficient evidence against Mr. Boone to recommend his termination to the school board. Instead, Mr. Boone was suspended without pay for five days. Mr. Boone did not challenge that decision and duly served his suspension. Mr. Boone did not admit that he had fondled Petitioner but did acknowledge that his conduct was unbecoming a school board employee. While more direct in admitting what occurred between Mr. Boone and herself, Petitioner also acknowledged that their behavior was inappropriate. Petitioner argues that both employees should have been treated similarly. Further, Petitioner maintains that Mr. Boone received better treatment, that is to say, less severe disciplinary measures, than she. Petitioner claims that her resignation was influenced by gender discrimination and ultimately a constructive discharge based upon the disparate treatment she received when compared to Mr. Boone. Petitioner did not file a complaint against the school board at the time of the incident claiming that her resignation was being coerced or was involuntarily tendered. At the time of resignation, Petitioner did not know what disciplinary action would be taken against Mr. Boone. Additionally, Petitioner knew or should have known that she could contest any disciplinary action brought against her and that she would be entitled to a hearing. Finally, Petitioner knew or should have known that her union could advise her and participate (as guided by their decision) in any disciplinary action against her based upon the terms of the union contract. Petitioner did not attempt to withdraw her letter of resignation prior to its effective date. Petitioner and Mr. Boone are no longer on friendly terms. Petitioner timely filed her claim with the FCHR seeking relief based upon gender-related disparate treatment. She maintains that conditions of her job environment constitute a constructive termination of her employment with Respondent. FCHR issued its determination of no cause and Petitioner timely pursued the instant administrative action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s claim for relief as she was not treated in a disparate manner, did not experience a hostile work environment, and did not establish that she was qualified to continue her position as a bus driver for Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Serita D. Beamon, Esquire Seminole County School Board Legal Service Department 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bill Vogel, Ed.D. Superintendent Education Support Center 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
