The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Manatee County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22 (1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School District. Mr. Gagnon has been in the education field for approximately 23 years, and has been with the School District since 2002. Mr. Gagnon served as an assistant principal at Lakewood Ranch High School and as principal at Palmetto High School, both of which are in Manatee County. Mr. Gagnon was the principal at MHS beginning with the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Gagnon served as the MHS principal until he transitioned to the position of assistant superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the School District in January 2012. Mr. Gagnon served as the interim superintendent for approximately one month in September/October 2012 and then returned to the assistant superintendent position when another person was appointed interim superintendent. In 2005 the School District posted a position for a specialist in the OPS to investigate alleged School District employee misconduct. The then superintendent wanted to establish a standardized method of investigating employee misconduct. Ms. Horne interviewed for the position, and was appointed as the first OPS specialist. As there were no School District policies or rules in place when she started, Ms. Horne assisted in writing the School District’s OPS policies. Sections 39.201 and 39.202, Florida Statutes, are incorporated into the School District’s policies and procedures as Policy 5.2(1), Policies and Procedures Manual, School Board of Manatee County (2013), which provides: Mandatory Duty to Report Suspected Child Abuse. All employees or agents of the district school board who have reasonable cause to suspect abuse have an affirmative duty to report it. Employees or agents so reporting have immunity from liability if they report such cases in good faith. This includes suspected child abuse of a student by an employee. Ms. Horne provided the training on this policy and other policies to School District employees. As the OPS investigator, Ms. Horne was to “investigate alleged employee misconduct and other matters as assigned” to her by her supervisor. Ms. Horne never had the authority to determine whether or not someone had engaged in misconduct or to make any recommendations as to what may or may not have happened. Her role was to simply gather the information, prepare a report of her findings, and provide that report to her supervisor. In November 2012, Mr. Martin was the School District’s assistant superintendent for District Support, and Ms. Horne’s direct supervisor. During her eight-year tenure as the OPS specialist, Ms. Horne investigated over 800 cases of employee misconduct. The School District uses a progressive discipline model for its employees. Should an employee exhibit behaviors that could be considered inappropriate or misconduct, the School District has a step-by-step method of taking disciplinary action, from simply talking with the employee up to termination of employment. If it is an egregious action, such as sexual conduct with a student, immediate termination is an option. The discipline begins on-site by the site-based managers where the incident occurs. Those site-based managers could have that simple conversation, and if need be, it could progress to a verbal directive, a memorandum of conference, and/or a written reprimand. Site-based managers include principals, assistant principals, directors, and assistant directors.3/ In those instances where the disciplinary action could lead to days without pay or termination, actions that could only be taken by the School Board, OPS would open an investigation. During the first two weeks of November 2012, Mr. Rinder was approached by several MHS teachers regarding concerns for their students. When Mr. Rinder spoke with Mr. Sauer, MHS’s principal, about those concerns, Mr. Sauer asked Mr. Rinder to type up the list (Rinder’s List) and give it to Mr. Sauer. Mr. Sauer, in turn, forwarded Rinder’s List to the OPS. Rinder’s List: [1.] One staff member reported a phone call to a female student during class. The student was upset by the call and told the staff member that Mr. Frazier had asked her if “she had gotten her period and did she need him to go to the drug store for her.” [2.] One staff member reported that Mr. Frazier repeatedly called for a female student during class. When asked if it was important, Mr. Frazier said “yes”. [sic] When the staff member asked the student what the problem was, the answer was “My mom wanted to take me to lunch and he helped me do it”. [sic] [3.] Male student was failing a core class. He told the teacher that “Frazier told me that he will change the grade”. [sic] [4.] A female student was observed getting into Mr. Frazier’s vehicle after school hours and was transported. [5.] Female student told a staff member that she overheard students talking about several meetings in the park late at night with Mr. Frazier. She stated that Mr. Frazier placed and [sic] empty water bottle between her legs as she was walking down the sidewalk. [6.] Female student was observed sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap eating cake off his fork. [7.] Female student reported to a staff member that Mr. Frazier made a comment to a student in the hall that he had put her on skype [sic] and she took a picture and has it saved on her cell phone. She is scared that he will retaliate if she tells. [8.] Female student told a staff member that Mr. Frazier had made comments to her at the Tiki Bar that she was old enough to be there and they could talk. When she refused to talk with him, she started having issues with Mr. Frazier at school. She transferred to LIFE program to get out. [9.] Female student was reported to a staff member by several students who stated that she was having a relationship with Mr. Frazier. She transferred schools. This conversation was overheard by two teachers in the hall. [10.] The Math Department this week was discussing Mr. Fraziers [sic] questionable activities. Upon receipt of Rinder’s List, Ms. Horne was directed to open an investigation into the allegations contained therein. The subject of the investigation was an MHS parent liaison4/ and assistant football coach named Roderick Frazier. In a very general sense, the allegations involved misconduct by a teacher. Rinder’s List initiated the Frazier investigation. However, Rinder’s List contains blatant hearsay which cannot form the basis for a finding of fact without corroboration. There was no testimony provided by any students mentioned in items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, or 9 above; hence, it is impossible to verify what occurred. Item 10 merely indicates that an entire department at MHS discussed “questionable activities” by an individual, but it provides no specific activities. There was no credible, non-hearsay evidence in this record to substantiate any of these allegations (items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, 9 or 10). On November 14, 2012, an email with an attached letter from then-Superintendent David Gayler, was sent to Mr. Sauer around 8:40 p.m., advising him that Mr. Frazier was to be placed on paid administrative leave (PAL) on Thursday, November 15. Mr. Sauer notified Mr. Frazier appropriately. The School Board’s policy regarding placing an employee on PAL is dependent upon whether there is a potential for harm to any student and/or the employee could incur a suspension or termination from employment. Due to an on-going investigation at a different school, Ms. Horne did not arrive at MHS to begin the investigation until the afternoon of Thursday, November 15. Ms. Horne first interviewed Mr. Rinder, as Rinder’s List did not contain any names of teachers or students who were allegedly involved. Upon obtaining the names of the teachers who had expressed concerns, Ms. Horne interviewed most of the teachers on November 15. By the time Ms. Horne completed her teacher interviews, the students had been dismissed from school and were no longer available. At some time, Mr. Rinder observed a female student getting into Mr. Frazier’s car after school (Rinder’s List, Item 4). Mr. Rinder was not alarmed by this sight, but merely thought it was Mr. Fazier’s son’s girlfriend getting a ride. There was no testimony that Mr. Rinder ever brought this information to Mr. Gagnon’s attention. Ms. Aragon brought two concerns about Mr. Frazier to Respondent’s attention: 1) she thought that girls were sitting too close to Mr. Frazier in golf carts at MHS; and 2) Mr. Frazier had called her classroom telephone to talk with a female student. Neither Ms. Aragon nor Mr. Gagnon were absolutely certain as to when these concerns were brought to Mr. Gagnon’s attention: Ms. Aragon thought they were brought to his attention during one conversation, and Mr. Gagnon thought there were two separate conversations approximately a year apart, based on the actions that he took to address them. Mr. Gagnon’s testimony is more credible. Upon being told of the golf cart issue, Respondent immediately went to the MHS courtyard and observed Mr. Frazier with a female student sitting in his golf cart. At the same time, Respondent observed two other assistant principals with students of the opposite sex sitting in their golf carts. Respondent addressed Mr. Frazier first, and then issued a directive to his discipline staff that no one was to allow a student to just sit in a golf cart. Respondent directed that if there was a legitimate reason to transport a student, that was fine, but students were no longer to just sit in the golf cart. With respect to the telephone incident (Rinder’s List Item 1), Mr. Frazier called Ms. Aragon’s classroom and bullied his way to speak with the female student. After the student hung up the phone with Mr. Frazier, she appeared to be upset. Ms. Aragon immediately questioned the student, and Ms. Aragon understood that Mr. Frazier had inquired about the student’s menstrual cycle. Ms. Aragon thought it was “inappropriate” for Mr. Frazier to be speaking with a female student about her menstrual cycle, but Ms. Aragon testified that she did not know if the conversation impacted the student’s day. Ms. Aragon was not privy to the actual conversation between the student and Mr. Frazier, and the student with whom the conversation was held did not testify. The actual telephone conversation is hearsay. Ms. Aragon sought guidance from the teacher’s union president as to what to do. When Ms. Aragon spoke with Mr. Gagnon about Mr. Frazier’s telephone call, Mr. Gagnon immediately turned the issue over to an assistant principal for investigation. Based on the report from the assistant principal, Mr. Gagnon was not concerned that anything inappropriate or sexual was happening.5/ At some point in time, Ms. Coates overheard two female students comment about Mr. Frazier. Although Ms. Coates asked the students to tell her directly the basis for their comment, the students declined. (Neither student testified at hearing.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Coates told Respondent the students’ comment. Ms. Coates heard Mr. Gagnon respond that something was going around on Facebook. Mr. Gagnon did not remember Ms. Coates telling him of the students’ comment. However, Mr. Gagnon routinely reviewed the disciplinary records for the three parent liaisons and was satisfied that Mr. Frazier was not showing favoritism in his discipline to one group of students over another. It is not uncommon for students to perceive that a teacher is showing favoritism towards a student or group of students. At the conclusion of the teacher interviews on November 15, Ms. Horne understood that the allegations had occurred a year or two before they were reported in Rinder’s List. This thought process was reinforced when Ms. Horne met with some of the MHS administrators in Mr. Sauer’s office where they had a telephone conference with Mr. Martin. Following the telephone conference, Ms. Horne returned to the School District’s main office and again conferred with Mr. Martin for directions. On November 15 or 16, 2012, Ms. Horne had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon at the School Board building. Mr. Gagnon asked about the Frazier investigation. Ms. Horne responded that the only issues she was hearing had previously been addressed, and that Ms. Horne would be returning for other interviews. Additionally, Mr. Martin had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon about the Rinder List allegations. Mr. Gagnon maintained that the allegations were old and had been dealt with appropriately. Ms. Horne shared with Mr. Martin that the Rinder List allegations were old and had been dealt with previously. Based on this information, Mr. Martin, in his sole discretion, determined to remove Mr. Frazier from PAL on November 16, 2012, and return him to work. Ms. Horne was surprised by this, as her investigation was incomplete. Ms. Horne interviewed Mr. Frazier as well as one other teacher, on November 16, 2012. Although Ms. Horne had the name of an alleged victim, Mr. Martin directed her not to interview that student at that time. In January 2013, a former MHS female student, D.K., wrote a letter to MHS alleging that Mr. Frazier did various inappropriate acts towards her while she was a student at MHS during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. In her letter, D.K. stated that she became close to Mr. Frazier during her two years at MHS. D.K. met Mr. Frazier at a park near her home, but during her second year at MHS (2011-2012), Mr. Frazier “started being weird with [her] and saying inappropriate things to” her. D.K. admitted that she frequently rode in Mr. Frazier’s golf cart around the school, and that Mr. Frazier put a water bottle (Rinder’s List Item 5, second sentence) in between her legs (between her knees and crotch) as they were sitting in the bleachers at the softball field and while sitting in a golf cart. D.K. came forward with the letter because she had heard of the Frazier investigation and that it was being closed. Several days after D.K.’s letter was received in OPS, Ms. Horne interviewed D.K., who was accompanied by her mother. Ms. Horne was unable to confirm D.K.’s credibility completely because Ms. Horne left OPS prior to the conclusion of the Frazier investigation. The most disturbing part of D.K.’s testimony came when D.K. admitted, and Ms. Peebles confirmed, that during the 2010- 2011 school year, Ms. Peebles walked into Mr. Frazier’s office unannounced and observed D.K. sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap holding a piece of cake (Rinder’s List Item 6). Ms. Peebles immediately instructed D.K. to get off Mr. Frazier’s lap and to sit in a chair on the other side of his desk. Mr. Frazier appeared to be unfazed by Ms. Peebles entering his office unannounced and witnessing this scene. Mr. Frazier proceeded to handle the disciplinary matter that Ms. Peebles had brought to him. Ms. Peebles reported the observation to an assistant principal, Matthew Kane, but not to Respondent. Ms. Peebles did not believe there was abuse on-going, but thought it was “not appropriate” for Mr. Frazier to have a student sitting on his lap. D.K. testified that “after he [Mr. Frazier] got in trouble he started getting me [D.K.] in trouble for things that I had been getting away with the whole time I was there [at MHS].” D.K. did not provide a time-frame or what “trouble” Mr. Frazier had gotten her into while D.K. was at MHS, and no evidence was provided otherwise. Further, D.K. never told Mr. Gagnon of any issues involving Mr. Frazier. D.K. was enrolled at a different local high school when Mr. Frazier was placed on PAL. Ms. Peebles relayed another issue regarding Mr. Frazier; however, it involved hearsay and was not corroborated by the student who initially reported the issue to Ms. Peebles. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding of fact as to that issue. In late January 2013, Ms. Horne transferred to an assistant principal position at a school district elementary school. Both Ms. Horne and Mr. Martin confirmed that the Frazier investigation had not been completed when Ms. Horne left OPS. Ms. Horne had not submitted a written report to her supervisor which would have signaled the completion of the Frazier investigation. The specialist position in OPS remained vacant until July 2013 when Mr. Pumphrey assumed the position. Mr. Pumphrey confirmed that there “had been an ongoing investigation both at the School District level and law enforcement surrounding Rod Frazier.” In an effort to gain speed in his investigation, Mr. Pumphrey reviewed the Frazier investigation file and became aware that the School District “had stalled their investigation pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.” Mr. Pumphrey reviewed Mr. Frazier’s personnel file and determined there was “no documentation of any discipline to Mr. Frazier.” Additionally, Mr. Pumphrey pulled all the published information including media accounts and police reports, and reviewed them. As Mr. Martin had been instrumental in hiring Mr. Pumphrey, the two spoke several times “because this thing [the Frazier investigation] was all over the place.” Several days after re-starting the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey expressed to the superintendent his concern about the close proximity of Mr. Pumphrey’s office to that of Mr. Gagnon and requested that Mr. Gagnon6/ be placed on PAL. The superintendent did so. During the course of the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey considered that Mr. Gagnon’s actions or inactions during the course of the Frazier investigation constituted “administrative negligence and/or intentional misconduct.” Mr. Pumphrey broadened the Frazier investigation to determine whether district administrators “had prior knowledge of complaints by female students and faculty regarding inappropriate conduct involving Frazier and, if so, why the complaints were not timely addressed.” There is no credible, non-hearsay evidence in the record to substantiate that Mr. Gagnon failed to investigate or report inappropriate conduct by a faculty member. When apprised of questionable or suspect conduct, Mr. Gagnon took the steps necessary to inquire. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding that Mr. Gagnon acted in the fashion alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 30th day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent from her employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an art teacher at Western High School ("Western High"). Respondent's career with the School Board, which spans some 21 years, has not proceeded entirely without incident: on January 31, 1997, Respondent uttered profanity in the presence of her students, which resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand that directed her to "cease and desist from inappropriate remarks"; several months later, Respondent's further use of colorful language led to a second written reprimand; and, in August 2009, Respondent agreed to serve a three-day suspension "for inappropriate language." The School Board now seeks to suspend Respondent for five days based upon an allegation that, on August 16, 2013, she used profanity and "aggressively grabbed" a female student's arm during an episode in Western High's parking lot. The facts relating to the instant charges are recounted below. Instant Allegations On the morning of August 16, 2013——the final weekday before the start of the 2013-2014 school year——Respondent arrived at Western High's campus to place the finishing touches on her classroom. On several occasions throughout the day, one of Western High's assistant principals announced that the school's parking lot would be locked at 5:30 p.m. The final such warning, which was made at 5:15 p.m., prompted Respondent to exit the building approximately five minutes later. As she headed toward her vehicle, Respondent (accompanied by her mother, Carol Fischer, herself a longtime educator) noticed several groups of students decorating parking spaces in the school lot. As explained during the final hearing, the students' presence was not unusual, for incoming seniors at Western High were authorized, pursuant to a school fundraiser, to "purchase" a parking space and adorn it as each saw fit. Mindful that the school gate would soon be locked, Respondent walked toward the groups and, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, loudly directed them to pack up their belongings and leave the campus. Each of the groups complied, save for one, which prompted Respondent to approach the stragglers and repeatedly announce——with diminishing volume as she made her way closer——that they needed to go home. Suffice it to say that these importunings had no discernable effect on the group's activities; as a result, Respondent continued toward the parking spot where the students were working. Now in their immediate vicinity, Respondent informed the group (which included two female students, N.S. and T.C., both of whom were incoming seniors at Western High) that they had two minutes to gather their possessions and leave the campus. During the ensuing interaction, T.C. began to argue with Respondent and, to make matters worse, acted as if she intended to continue painting. Her patience understandably waning, Respondent reached toward T.C. and, in a non-violent fashion, placed her hand on the student's upper arm. This brief physical contact, intended to secure T.C.'s complete attention and gesture her in the direction of the exit, was instantly met with a vocal objection. Respondent immediately reacted by stepping backwards,1/ at which point the group began to gather up the painting materials. T.C. and the other students departed the parking lot a short time later. Contrary to the complaint's allegations, the credible evidence demonstrates that, although Respondent addressed the students with an elevated voice (but only as she approached from a distance), she at no point used profanity or any other inappropriate language.2/ Further, the record is pellucid that Respondent's momentary, gesturing contact with T.C. was completely innocuous and in no way constituted an "aggressive grab."3/ Indeed, T.C. acknowledged during her final hearing testimony that Respondent plainly intended no harm.4/ Finally, and with respect to the charge of insubordination, there has been no showing that Respondent's behavior ran afoul of any direct order. Although the School Board attempted to prove the existence of a "no touching whatsoever" rule, the testimony on that point was internally contradictory and ultimately unpersuasive. In any event, and as discussed shortly, a general policy——i.e., one applicable to all employees——does not constitute a direct order for the purpose of sustaining an insubordination charge. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of misconduct in office. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; and awarding Respondent any lost pay and benefits she experienced as a result of the five-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues to be decided are: Whether Ms. Banfield should be terminated from her employment with the School Board of Palm Beach County effective July 22, 1987, for misconduct in office and gross insubordination based upon an alleged inability to work in a cooperative manner with her peers and supervisors after repeated counseling and warnings were given to her to adjust her attitude. Whether if there is no basis for discharge, the evidence supports some lesser penalty. Whether Ms. Banfield is entitled to back pay if she is not terminated. Whether an award of attorney's fees is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Banfield is a non-instructional employee of the School Board of Palm Beach County. She was initially employed at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School as an Office Assistant II on an interim basis, effective September 21, 1981. She resigned from that position effected November 13, 1981. Ms. Banfield was re-employed by the School Board at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School an a Media Clerk I, effective August 17, 1982. She was transferred to the position of School Office Assistant II, effective August 4, 1983, and has served in that position since that time. Ms. Banfield received formal evaluations of her work performance on February 17, 1984; June 4, 1984; October 1, 1984; January 10, 1985; June 12, 1986; and June 16, 1987. Ms. Banfield received memoranda from two principals at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School (Jack Redding and Eugenia Jones) regarding her work performance. She received these on September 17, 1984, January 24, 1986, and August 29, 1987. On May 11, 1987, Ms. Banfield was involved in a discussion with a classroom teacher at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School, Kay Ventura. On June 19, 1987, Ms. Banfield received a notice of suspension with pay, recommendation for suspension without pay, and recommendation for termination of employment based upon the charge of misconduct in office and gross insubordination. The School Board of Palm Beach County suspended Ms. Banfield without pay effective July 8, 1987, pending final action on the superintendent's recommendation for termination. The following Findings of Fact are based on evidence adduced at the hearing. As an Office Assistant II, Ms. Banfield has been assigned to work as a receptionist and secretary in the guidance department of the school which is located in a trailer apart from the main school building. Ms. Banfield is employed under an annual contract of employment which had been renewed yearly. The Superintendent of Schools recommended that Ms. Banfield receive an annual contract of employment for the 1987-88 school year. Before the event which is the focus of this dismissal proceeding, Ms. Banfield had received prior notices that her work performance was inadequate due to the "nasty, harsh, abrupt" manner in which she dealt with persons she came in contact with (Petitioner's exhibit 4, dated September 17, 1984). Ms. Banfield was informed that "unless her performance was entirely satisfactory, her continued employment with the District School Board would be in jeopardy." (id.) On October 1, 1984, her employment evaluation contained the comment that I strongly recommend that you seek to improve the tone quality of your voice, however, improvement is noted. Further improvement is needed. (Plaintiff's exhibit 5) Ms. Banfield was recognized as "a very hard worker," however, (id.) in spite of these criticisms, Ms. Banfield's contract was renewed. By January 1985, the employment evaluation noted that the tone quality of her voice had improved tremendously (Petitioner's exhibit 7). By January 1986, however, the new principal of Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School, Eugenia Jones, wrote Ms. Banfield about the unpleasant attitude and negative tone of voice Ms. Banfield used in the guidance office and on the telephone. Ms. Jones made it clear that such behavior to parents and visitors to the guidance office was unacceptable. (Petitioner's exhibit 8). The June 1986 employment evaluation of Ms. Banfield pointed out that when informed of deficiencies, Ms. Banfield was pleasant but soon reverted back to the same negative behaviors. It was also noted that Ms. Banfield displayed a negative attitude when given additional assignments, and needed to improve her tone of voice. She was also recognized for knowing her job and keeping accurate records. (Petitioner's exhibit 9). Near the opening of the 1986-1987 school year, Ms. Banfield was given a written reprimand by the school principal as the result of an incident which involved the assistant principal, Mr. Thompson. A parent with a child was at the school office trying to find out where to register. The school secretary asked Ms. Banfield where registration was taking place and Ms. Banfield responded, "In our [the guidance) office" and walked away. The assistant principal saw this, and called Ms. Banfield back to escort the parent to the guidance office. After she had been called the first time she did not respond, so the assistant principal called her again. She told the assistant principal in an arrogant voice, "I said in my office, good God." The assistant principal then told her that he only had called her back to escort the parent to the guidance office. Ms. Banfield replied, "Then send her on." Ms. Banfield later was informed by the assistant principal that a display of an attitude problem in front of parents would not be tolerated, and he made a memorandum of the incident which he sent to Ms. Jones, the principal. (Petitioner's exhibit 10). This resulted in a follow-up reprimand from Ms. Jones to Ms. Banfield pointing out that Ms. Banfield's working relationships, unpleasant attitude, and telephone manners had been discussed with her on numerous occasions and that it was expected that Ms. Banfield would provide a warm welcome to all parents and others visiting the school. (Petitioner's exhibits 11). She was also informed that further incidents would result in proceedings to terminate her employment. Ms. Banfield acknowledges she had received warnings from both her former principal (Mr. Redding) and current principal (Ms. Jones) about her attitude. A classroom teacher assigned to teach educable mentally handicapped students entered the guidance office to leave a note for one of the guidance counselors, Joy Gates, on May 11, 1987. At that time, Ms. Banfield's immediate supervisor, Gwendolyn Johnson, the guidance coordinator for the school, was in her own office which is in the trailer where Ms. Banfield serves as secretary and receptionist. Ms. Johnson was meeting with a classroom teacher, Kent Heitman. The door to Ms. Johnson's office was open. Also present in the office suite was a student assistant, Teresa Young. Ms. Ventura asked Ms. Banfield whether Ms. Banfield had an envelope or piece or paper in which she could cover the note she wished to leave for Ms. Gates. The note had to do with a student and Ms. Ventura wished to enclose it to keep the matter confidential. Ms. Banfield told Ms. Ventura she did not have an envelope or any paper to give her. Ms. Banfield was standing at the copy machine at the time. She was responsible for the operation of the copier. Ms. Ventura approached the copy machine and removed a piece of paper from the tray which was not being used at that moment by Ms. Banfield for copying to enclose the note. Ms. Banfield became very angry with Ms. Ventura and began shouting at her. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Heitman heard the shouting and came out of Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Ventura then went into Ms. Gates' office and stated that she was not going to put up with Ms. Banfield's conduct. Ms. Ventura closed the door to Ms. Gates' office and respondent continued to shout at Ms. Ventura through that closed door. Ms. Ventura had closed herself in Ms. Gates' office because she was afraid of the respondent. Ms. Gates then entered the trailer and found Ms. Ventura in her office. While Ms. Gates discussed the incident with Ms. Ventura, they could hear Ms. Banfield outside the door talking loudly about what Ms. Banfield was going to do as a result of the incident. It is not clear, however, that there was anyone to whom Ms. Banfield was speaking. Ms. Banfield was obviously extremely upset by Ms. Ventura's self-help in obtaining a piece of paper from the copy machine at which Ms. Banfield had been standing, but which Ms. Banfield had not been using at the time. Ms. Ventura removed the sheet of paper from the feed mechanism. Ms. Banfield's expression of anger to Ms. Ventura, and her continued tirade after Ms. Gates returned to the office and was discussing the matter with Ms. Ventura in Ms. Gates' office, was wholly out of proportion to whatever offense Ms. Banfield believed she had suffered from Ms. Ventura. Ms. Banfield reported the incident to the principal, Eugenia Jones, at the suggestion of Gwen Johnson. When Ms. Banfield discussed the incident with Ms. Jones, she was still speaking loudly, shaking, and enraged. Ms. Jones thereafter requested that the assistant superintendent for personnel relations investigate the matter and recommended that disciplinary action be taken against Ms. Banfield. After the incident with Ms. Ventura, Ms. Gates discussed with Ms. Banfield concerns about Ms. Banfield's behavior. For example, on one occasion Ms. Gates was looking for a form usually kept on a file next to Ms. Banfield's desk. While standing along side Ms. Banfield's desk looking for the form, Ms. Banfield asked Ms. Gates what her problem was and made it clear that she did not want Ms. Gates looking for forms on Ms. Banfield's desk. The forms Ms. Gates was looking for are ones which Ms. Gates uses in the performance of her duties. Ms. Gates had also been told by school personnel that they did not like to come to the guidance office because of Ms. Banfield's behavior. On June 16, 1987, Ms. Jones gave Ms. Banfield a written performance evaluation which found that her conduct was unsatisfactory in dealing with fellow staff members, and on June 19, 1987, informed Ms. Banfield that charges of misconduct in office and gross insubordination were being brought due to Ms. Banfield's deficient record of performance in dealing with others. Ms. Banfield was suspended without pay from her position effective July 8, 1987, and this proceeding ensued.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered terminating the employment of Ms. Banfield as an annual contract employee with the School Board of Palm Beach County for misconduct and gross insubordination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1060 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-2964 The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 129.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are as follows: Covered in Conclusions of Law. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Generally covered in finding of fact 3, otherwise rejected as cumulative. Covered in finding of fact 3, otherwise rejected as cumulative. Generally covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Generally covered in the final sentence of finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 6. 12-15. Covered in finding of fact 5. 16-18. Covered in finding of fact 7. 19-20. Covered in finding of fact 8. 21-22. Covered in finding of fact 9 and 10. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. 26-29. Rejected as argument rather than a finding of fact. The Hearing Officer agrees that Ms. Young's version of the incident is not the more credible, and has accepted the version explained in the testimony of Gwendolyn Johnson, Kent Heitman, Joy Gates, and Kay Ventura. Rulings on Respondent's proposed finding of fact. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected because of the incident recounted by Assistant Principal Thompson did occur as explained by Mr. Thompson in his testimony and his contemporaneous memoranda, and does constitute a behavior problem of Ms. Banfield. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected, the version of the event which is accepted is found in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected because whether Ms. Ventura may be aloof or unfriendly has nothing to do with the extreme reaction of Ms. Banfield, and aloofness would be an inadequate provocation for the reaction exhibited by Ms. Banfield. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. 17-18. Rejected because the Hearing Officer finds that at the time Ms. Ventura removed the paper from the feed tray of the copy machine, Ms. Banfield was not operating the copy machine. Generally covered in findings of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7 but I do not find that Ms. Ventura slammed the door to Ms. Gates' office. Rejected because the Hearing Officer does not find that Ms. Ventura emerged from Ms. Gates' office and yelled at Ms. Banfield. Rejected because the Hearing Officer cannot accept the version of the incident portrayed in the testimony of Ms. Young. Without ascribing any motivation to Ms. Young, the Hearing Officer find that the more credible testimony was given by other witnesses. Generally covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in the prehearing stipulation. Covered in finding of fact 3. That Ms. Banfield was recognized for performing her job functions is covered in findings of fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Mark A. Cullen, Esquire 1030 Lake Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract for the reasons alleged in a letter dated November 18, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught in the Polk County School System since 2000. For the first four school years, Respondent taught drama at the Rochelle School of the Arts. The next school year, Respondent taught English for one year at Kathleen Middle School. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent taught middle school English at Gause Academy until January 13, 2009. The allegations at issue in this proceeding pertain to the 2007–2008 school year at Gause Academy. By letter dated November 18, 2008, the superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that the superintendent was recommending that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On January 13, 2009, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the superintendent. The letter dated November 18, 2008, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of her employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: . . . excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, and ongoing gross insubordination. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of excessive absenteeism during the 2007-2008 school year at Gause Academy. It is undisputed that the absences for Respondent during the 2007-2008 school year totaled 43 days, of which many were before or after a weekend and resulted in three or four consecutive days. However, it is also undisputed that absences were due to illness and the remaining 14 absences were suspensions or leave time imposed by Respondent’s employer. During the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent missed days due to illness, and Petitioner determined that Respondent was a good, dynamic teacher who related well with students and worked well in the classroom. Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence any credible and persuasive reason why 30 absences for sickness during the 2005- 2006 school year were acceptable to Petitioner, but that 29 absences for sickness during the 2007-2008 school year warranted termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The medical reasons for Respondent’s absences during the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 school years were the same. Respondent has suffered debilitating migraine headaches from a very young age. When Respondent suffers a serious migraine headache, it is difficult for her to function. However, Respondent has managed to control the effects of her migraines. A preponderance of the evidence does not explicate persuasive reasons why 30 absences during the 2005-2006 school year did not prevent Respondent from doing her job satisfactorily, but that 29 absences during the 2007-2008 school year justifies the termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The allegation of dishonesty relates to a form, identified as an Employee Application for Leave, that Respondent completed for absences from October 1 through October 3, 2008. The form provides that Respondent was sick and unable to leave her bed from October 1 through 3, 2008. Respondent signed the form on October 6, 2008, and the school principal approved the form on October 7, 2008. Sometime after October 7, 2008, the principal received information that Respondent had been arrested on October 1, 2008. The testimony of the principal during the hearing shows that he has no knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest, including the time of the arrest and the time Respondent was released and returned to her home. Nor does the principal have any knowledge of whether Respondent was ill with a migraine from October 1 through 3, 2008. Local law enforcement officers arrested Respondent at her home at 6:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, on a charge that Respondent had issued a bad check. The officers took Respondent to the courthouse, the amount was paid, and Respondent was back home by 9:00 a.m. Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, Respondent’s mother called the school and told school officials that Respondent was ill and would not be in to work. Neither Respondent’s mother nor Respondent misrepresented Respondent’s illness. Respondent was ill with a migraine headache while she was at the courthouse and, upon her return home, was confined to bed for three days. The remaining allegation is that Respondent did not prepare adequate lesson plans. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of inadequate lesson plans. At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the principal performed a Quality Performance Summary Assessment for Respondent, which is the equivalent of a year-end evaluation. The principal rated Respondent as “Needing Improvement” in the areas of Planning for Learning Communication and Professionalism and rated Respondent as “Unsatisfactory” in the area of Managing the Learning Environment. The principal indicated an appropriate Professional Development Plan (PDP) would be written for the 2007-2008 school year. The PDP was presented to Petitioner at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. The primary strategies identified for improving classroom planning included: maintenance of a plan book to be turned in at the end of each week to the assistant principal and participation in in-service training for expanded classroom strategies. The PDP identified a Professional Resource Team to assist Respondent in the implementation of the PDP. The team consisted of the assistant principal, guidance counselor, and dean of students. Lesson planning at Guase Academy is left to the discretion of individual teachers. There is no template for lesson plans. Each teacher is left to develop lesson plans in a manner that is appropriate for his or her purposes. The assistant principal and guidance counselor did not provide Respondent with meaningful assistance toward the PDP goals. The assistant principal instructed all teachers that they could use documents identified in the record as “curriculum maps” as lesson plans. Respondent relied on the assistant principal and utilized curriculum maps to develop her lesson plans. Respondent worked extensively with the dean of students to formulate and complete lesson plans in a manner that was satisfactory to the principal. Respondent also worked with three fellow teachers who evaluated Respondent’s lesson plans and found them to be sufficient. None of the lesson plans were ever satisfactory to the principal. Respondent met with the principal on numerous occasions during the 2007-2008 school year. At each meeting, the principal gave only a cursory review of the plans, concluded they were inadequate, and gave no explanation of a specific deficiency. Respondent never refused to provide lesson plans and never failed to submit lesson plans until after it was apparent that no lesson plan from Respondent would satisfy the principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reinstating Respondent’s professional services contract with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of August, 2009.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Between December 6, 1994, and October 15, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver and, subsequently, as a materials handling technician who delivered textbooks and supplies. His performance evaluations for that work were satisfactory or better. Prior to October 15, 1995, a teacher aide position became vacant at H. L. Johnson Elementary School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. This vacancy was in the special education classroom taught by Harriet Lurie. Although he had no experience or training for this type work, Respondent was hired to fill this vacancy. Respondent began this employment on October 15, 1995. The students in this classroom require constant supervision and assistance. Ms. Lurie, an experienced ESE teacher, the Respondent, and one other teacher aide were expected to provide the care and supervision required by these students. Respondent and Ms. Lurie were unable to develop an effective working relationship. The conflicts between Respondent and Ms. Lurie escalated, despite the efforts of the principal, Penelope Lopez, to encourage them to work together. December 15, 1995, was the last day of school prior the Christmas holidays. Following an incident between Respondent and Ms. Lurie earlier that day, Respondent appeared in Ms. Lopez's office and requested that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's class to any other available position. Ms. Lopez explained to Respondent that there were no other available positions. Because he was adamant about not returning to Ms. Lurie's classroom, Ms. Lopez agreed during that meeting to let Respondent perform custodial duties for the remainder of the day. January 2, 1996, was the first day of school following the Christmas holidays. On that date, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office and met with her prior to the beginning of school. Respondent again asked that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent became upset when Ms. Lopez denied his request for transfer and thereafter gave him a written reprimand. The reprimand, which accurately reflects efforts by Ms. Lopez to resolve the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I have had conferences with you on December 6, 12 and 15, 1995 and numerous other impromptu meetings in which we discussed your concerns, my concerns and conflicts you were having with the teacher and the other teacher aide in the K-1B classroom (Ms. Lurie's classroom). The students in this classroom need consistent supervision in a warm nurturing environment. I am very unhappy with the conflict going on between you and the teacher and you and the other aide, at times in front of the students . . . There appears to be no effective working relationship between you and these associates . . . * * * 6. As a teacher-aide (sic), you report to the teacher in the K-1B class and work under her direct supervision. You are expected to follow directions and not argue with her . . . I have requested at each meeting with you to work cooperatively with the teacher and your coworker to solve problems or enhance the classroom setting and work as a team. I had to remove you from the classroom on December 15, 1995 due to a conflict with the teacher. Since you have not heeded my previous advice, I'm presenting you with this written reprimand as disciplinary action. I expect your behavior to improve immediately in all of these areas. Should you fail to improve your attendance and abide by established and published rules and duties of your position, you will subject yourself to further discipline. After Ms. Lopez gave Respondent the written reprimand, on January 2, 1996, she instructed him to return to his duties in Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent refused this instruction and left the school campus. Respondent did not return to the school campus on January 2, 1996. Respondent had seven days of sick leave available for his use as of January 2, 1996. Further, he qualified for additional unpaid leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), 29 USC Sections 2611 et seq. Respondent did not requested nor had he been given any type of authorized leave for January 2, 1996. Respondent asserts that the School Board has no grounds to terminate his employment for his conduct on January 2, 1996, because he left school to go visit his doctor. The assertion that he left campus on January 2, 1996, because he was sick or in need of a doctor is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this proceeding. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that after he left the school campus on January 2, 1996, Respondent spent the balance of the day attempting to contact district administrators to complain about the letter of reprimand he had received. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent did not seek medical attention on January 2, 1996. 1/ Respondent disobeyed Ms. Lopez's clear and direct instructions on January 2, 1996, and he willfully neglected his official responsibilities. This action was not justified by a need for medical attention. On January 3, 1996, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office at approximately 7:45 a.m. Ms. Lopez told Respondent that he was needed in Ms. Lurie's class and told him to report to duty. Respondent replied that he was going to the doctor and left school campus. When Ms. Lopez asked why he had not gone to the doctor when he was away from school on January 2, Respondent replied that he had been too busy attempting to do something about the reprimand he had been issued. Respondent was entitled to use sick leave to visit the doctor on January 3, 1996, and he was entitled to use paid sick leave, to the extent of its availability, between January 3, 1996, and the time of his tests on January 16, 1996. Good Samaritan Primary Care is a group of doctors who have associated for the practice of medicine. Leonard A. Sukienik, D.O., and Karen Kutikoff, M.D., are employed by that group practice. On January 3, 1996, Respondent was examined by Dr. Sukienik. Following that examination, Dr. Sukienik scheduled certain medical tests for Respondent to be conducted January 16, 1996. Dr. Sukienik wrote the following note dated January 3, 1996: To whom it may concern, Mr. Frank Sedor is a patient in my office and is noted to have stress related anxiety attacks with chest pain symptoms. This stress may be related to his job and Mr. Sedor may benefit from time off from work. Respondent returned to Johnson Elementary and met with Ms. Lopez at approximately 1:30 p.m. Respondent gave Ms. Lopez the note written by Dr. Sukienik. When Ms. Lopez asked Respondent to return to work, he informed her that he was not going to return to work until after the tests scheduled for January 16, 1996, had been completed. Respondent thereafter left the school campus. Respondent did not request any type of leave on January 3, 1996. Prior to her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez did not intend to recommend that Respondent's employment be terminated because she hoped that the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie could be resolved. After her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez sent a memorandum to Louis Haddad, Jr., the coordinator of Petitioner's Employee Relations office in which she requested that further disciplinary action be taken against Respondent for his refusal to report to his classroom as instructed on January 2, 1996, and for thereafter leaving the school site. The School Board, based on the superintendent's recommendation, voted to terminate Respondent's employment at its meeting of February 7, 1996, on grounds of insubordination and willful neglect of duty based on Respondent's conduct on January 2, 1996. 2/ The School Board is not seeking to terminate Respondent's employment for conduct after January 2, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. The final order should also terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher aide. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of December, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Philip James Chase, II, was employed under a continuing contract as a classroom teacher at Dunedin High School (DHS) in Dunedin, Florida. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). During school year 1990- 91, respondent was a physical education and driver's education teacher and also served as wrestling coach. He has been an employee of the Board since 1975 and a teacher since 1971. The facts underlying this controversy are relatively simple. On December 18, 1990, respondent was seated at his desk in the DHS physical education office talking to two students. At the same time, several other students were in line to weigh themselves on a weight scale which was located a few feet from respondent's desk. After one student had jumped on the scale, respondent, without looking up, said to the students still in line, "on the scale gently, please". The next student in line, Derek Carson, ignored respondent's instructions and jumped on the scale causing a loud banging noise. Respondent rose out of his chair and at the same time gently swung his foot and hit Carson's buttocks. He also told Carson, "I told you gently, please." Carson immediately launched into a tirade of verbal obscenities at the top of his voice against respondent. Realizing that Carson was obviously upset, respondent initially ignored the remarks, but after the verbal abuse continued, he told Carson that he (Carson) ought to try to talk to him in that manner "on the street". Carson then departed. At no time did Chase become upset or lose his composure during the incident, and he drew praise for his cool demeanor from his department chairman who was an eyewitness to the incident. There is no competent evidence that Carson "reasonably interpreted" respondent's remarks as "fighting words" as charged in the suspension letter. 1/ Since the incident occurred in the presence of a number of students and two members of the faculty, it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Carson was embarrassed by the incident. The student then reported the incident to the principal, John McLay, who investigated the matter and initially concluded that respondent should be given a written reprimand. However, after McLay learned that Carson's grandparents (guardians) had filed a complaint with the Board, he turned the matter over to the Board for further action rather than handling it at the local school level. Because the Board's superintendent has proposed to increase the severity of the penalty from a reprimand to a three day suspension, Chase has requested this hearing. 2/ According to McLay, the faculty is given specific training at the beginning of each school year on how to resolve conflicts of this nature and is warned that a student may react negatively to physical discipline. He added that a teacher should never place his hands on a student for any reason unless the teacher is in fear of bodily harm or is trying to break up a disturbance among students. McLay also placed importance on how the student perceived the actions of the teacher. In other words, if the student perceived a light tap from the teacher as being deliberate or malicious when in fact the teacher was only kidding, McLay felt the action by the teacher would probably be unjustified. He agreed, however, that other factors, besides the student's perception of the incident, were also relevant to a final determination. McLay also emphasized the importance of teachers maintaining a good rapport with a student's parents since the education of the child required their cooperation. Further, the Board's director of personnel services, Steven Crosby, established that the incident undermined the parents' confidence in respondent. He characterized the action of respondent as "poor judgment" and one which diminished his effectiveness as a teacher. This testimony on the issue of teacher effectiveness is accepted as being more credible than that offered by a student and fellow teacher who testified on respondent's behalf. Crosby added that simply because Chase was a coach who worked in a more informal atmosphere than did other teachers did not excuse his conduct. Crosby noted that school policy generally calls for a three day suspension without pay for a teacher "who has struck a student". Although Chase had previously been given a reprimand for using poor judgment in 1988, Crosby felt that such a penalty was especially appropriate here without regard to the previous reprimand because Chase "had lashed out at a student, physically, out of frustration or during a time of upset." However, as noted in a prior finding, Chase did not tap the student on his buttocks out of anger or because of frustration. Two witnesses to the incident described the kick to Carson's buttocks as having insufficient force to cause any injury to the student. This was not credibly contradicted. Further, one witness characterized the kick as actually being a "tap" while the other stated he was under the impression respondent was kidding when he swung his foot towards the student. Respondent added that the kick was intended to be "negative reinforcement" after his verbal instructions were ignored. He now agrees that it was a mistake to touch the student in that manner and recognizes that he violated school policy. Other than the reprimand in 1988, respondent has an unblemished tenure with the school system. The Board has adopted a Code of Student Conduct (Code) which prescribes the type of disciplinary action permitted to be taken by school personnel against students. Section (7)(a) of the Code provides as follows: (7) DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND PROCEDURES: (a) TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION PERMITTED The following types of disciplinary action may be considered. 4. Corporal Punishment: For purposes of this code, corporal punishment shall refer to physical punishment (as) opposed to other forms of punishment. The use of corporal punishment is not permitted as a type of disciplinary action. (emphasis added) Thus, corporal punishment of any form is prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of misconduct in office and that he be given a written reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Seminole County School Board is entitled to dismiss Respondent for just cause for misconduct in office and/or gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner, the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. Paul J. Hagerty is the Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, and the executive officer of the school board. Respondent, Robert Brinkman, is employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as both a teacher at Sterling Park Elementary School and a custodian at another school in Seminole County and has a professional services contract for instructional personnel with the School Board of Seminole County. Respondent is 57 years old and has taught school for 23 years. No evidence was presented regarding his status as a custodian other than he was a custodian at the time he received his letter of suspension and that he was asked to "turn in his keys." He is not currently performing custodial services. On Wednesday, December 13, 2000, Respondent requested of his supervisor, Principal Deborah Wright, that he be given his paycheck on the following day, Thursday, December 14. The regular payday was Friday, December 15. Respondent advised Principal Wright that he had planned to go on vacation on the 15th and needed his paycheck a day early. Principal Wright refused to agree to give Respondent his paycheck early, advising him that no one else would be given the checks early and further advising him that he would have to reschedule his vacation. Respondent returned to the office he shared with Dawn Towle and, as characterized by both Respondent and Miss Towle, "he just lost it" and said "that black bitch won't give me my check." There is no evidence that this statement was overheard by any students; none were present. Whether the statement was directed to Miss Towle or not, she heard the statement and she responded, "excuse me?", to which Respondent replied "that black lady won't give me my check early." Miss Towle immediately reported the statement to Principal Wright. Principal Wright appropriately interpreted Respondent's statement as a racial remark made about her; the racial remark made her angry. Miss Towle suggests that on four occasions over a two school-year period, while she and Respondent shared their 10-square-foot office, she heard Respondent utter remarks that she considered "similar (racial) comments." The importance of these purported racial comments is discounted by the fact that they occurred in private conversations, some were not epithets or racial slurs, the only one concerning Principal Wright may not have been intended to be heard by anyone (Respondent "mumbled under his breath") and that Respondent denied having made any racial remarks other than the remark on December 13, 2000. Principal Wright called Respondent to her office, and in the presence of a witness, the assistant principal, told Respondent that "if you ever refer to me by any name other than Mrs. Wright, I will walk you out of the school on your toes." Under the circumstances, while the undersigned can only imagine the true import of the statement, it seems perfectly appropriate. Respondent immediately attempted to apologize; Principal Wright directed him to leave her office. He returned later that morning and again attempted to apologize and was again rebuffed. Principal Wright did not accept his apology because she did not believe his apology was genuine. Principal Wright acknowledged animosity toward Respondent based on previous instances with children; she was not aware of any prior racial remarks made by Respondent. Respondent mailed Principal Wright an apology one week after the incident indicating that "he was upset" and that his statement was "inappropriate and did not indicate how I feel about you." Principal Wright testified that Respondent had done nothing that was "racially harassing to her in the past," that his statement did not intimidate her or create a "hostile work environment," and that the statement (dealing with it) took time that she could have devoted to other job responsibilities. Respondent's statement, while clearly racially and sexually offensive, was isolated and not so severe as to create a hostile or abusive work environment. Principal Wright immediately reported the statement to John Reichert, who is charged by the School Board with the responsibility of investigating complaints of misconduct. Mr. Reichert arrived at Sterling Park Elementary School at 12:30 p.m., on the day of the incident. After interviewing Miss Towle and Principal Wright, he interviewed Respondent. Respondent acknowledged making the statement, said it was "a stupid thing to say" but that he was upset because he couldn't get his check, and that "he just lost it." The same day or the next, Respondent was suspended with pay which matured into a suspension without pay, effective January 17, 2001. The slur first heard or overheard by Miss Towle was indirectly published by Principal Wright to the assistant principal who became a witness to Principal Wright's admonishment of Respondent. While the assistant principal is not specifically aware of the text of Respondent's statement, she was made aware that Respondent had made a racial statement about Principal Wright. To the degree this remark has been further published, it is a result of appropriate investigative and administrative action taken by the School Board. There is no evidence that there is a general awareness, in the school system or the community, of Respondent's statement. Other than the testimony of Miss Towle, there is no suggestion that the Respondent made other sexual/racial statements. He has no record of sexual/racial misconduct. Respondent maintains that his remark was not racially motivated, that he was just very upset. He has enjoyed working for Principal Wright for five years. At the final hearing, Respondent again acknowledged that what he said was very inappropriate and that he is very sorry for what he said. There is no evidence that Respondent's remark actually impaired his effectiveness in the school system--which is a necessary factual component of the offense of misconduct in office. The only evidence received on the issue of impairment of Respondent's effectiveness in the school system is John Reichert's testimony that he had no knowledge that Respondent's effectiveness would be impaired anywhere beyond Sterling Park Elementary School.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Seminole County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and returning him to full duty, effective January 17, 2001, with all back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFFREY B. CLARK 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 20th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Sandra J. Pomerantz, Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be disciplined as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Willie Vance, was employed as a lead custodian at Ponce de Leon Middle School in Dade County, Florida. Over the course of several years, starting as early as 1986, Respondent was counseled regarding the personnel rules and employment requirements for continued employment with the School Board. More specifically, Respondent was advised that absenteeism presented a hardship in the workplace and that he would not be permitted to adversely affect the normal operation of the school. In this regard, Respondent was referred to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program on at least two occasions. In May 1990, Respondent was cited for excessive absenteeism and reminded of the collective bargaining agreement provisions which outline when absences may be grounds for termination. In the years that followed, Respondent continued to have difficulty complying with the regulations regarding absences. He was cited for failing to adhere to the procedures for reporting absences. As lead custodian Respondent was responsible for opening the school at the beginning of each school day. On several occasions, school staff were left to wait for Respondent to arrive to open the school or turn off security alarm systems. Respondent's attendance problem increased and in 1995 he received verbal and written directives regarding his attendance and work performance. By January 1996, Respondent's conduct had not improved. Instead, his continued failure to abide by the directives regarding attendance and work performance led to an incident wherein Respondent used profane and vulgar language and threatened a member of the school staff with bodily harm. These acts occurred in the presence of students and staff members. On February 9, 1996, Respondent was directed to refrain from threatening and/or verbally abusing other staff members. More important, Respondent was advised that continued behavior would result in further disciplinary action. On February 29, 1996, Respondent was absent from work, failed to timely alert school staff that he would not be at work, and, as a result, the school did not open on time. On March 18, 1996, Respondent was absent from work without prior authorization and did not report his absence to school administrators. On March 19, 1996, Respondent failed to sign out on the payroll sheet as all employees had been directed. On March 20, 1996, Respondent failed to report to work without prior authorization from the school principal. On March 26, 1996, Respondent was issued a written warning that his continued failure to perform his assigned duties and repeated indifference to the directives regarding attendance would result in further disciplinary measures. On April 2, 1996, Respondent was advised that continued failure to follow directives would be considered insubordination. On April 11, 1996, Respondent failed to report for work, failed to give notice of his absence, and failed to open the school timely. Since no one knew Respondent would be absent, no administrator could cover for Respondent. As a result, on this date the school mail was not delivered (including employees' paychecks). On April 24, 1996, Respondent was notified that if his performance did not improve by the end of the 1995-96 school year, that a recommendation for disciplinary action would be made to the School Board by the principal. In May 1996, the principal was notified that Respondent had failed to follow through with the Employee Assistance Program's recommendations. Subsequently, Respondent's conduct deteriorated. On May 31, 1996, he made a threat to another staff member; on June 4, 1996, he had a verbal altercation with another custodian; on June 7, 1996, he was absent without prior approval; on July 9, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time; on July 17, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time; on July 22, 1996, he was absent from work without prior authorization; and on July 23, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time. On July 24, 1996, Respondent was issued a written warning again advising him that his continued failure to comply with procedures could not be tolerated. He was advised that his performance was unacceptable, that it was having a detrimental effect on his co-workers, and that continued failure would be considered neglect of duty and gross insubordination. On September 11, 1996, in the presence of students, Respondent was verbally abusive and threatening to an assistant principal. On September 25, 1996, Respondent had another altercation with a co-worker. Respondent threatened the employee by holding a gasoline container and suggesting he would pour gasoline over the worker and light a match. Despite additional warnings and conferences with Respondent, Respondent failed to abide by the directives from school administrators. The directives were reasonable in nature and related to the offensive and inappropriate behavior exhibited by Respondent. Nevertheless, Respondent did not improve. From October 1996 through January 6, 1997, Respondent continued to exhibit an indifference to the directives from school personnel. He continued to fail to report to work and, on January 6, 1997, did not report his absence. On February 5, 1997, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent from his employment with the school district and to initiate dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension without pay previously entered, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Willie Vance, pro se 3682 Grand Avenue, No. 3 Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was on an annual contract with the School Board of Pinellas County (Exhibit 5). On November 14, 1987, Respondent was arrested by the St. Petersburg police and charged with possession of cocaine (Exhibit 5). An Information was filed against Respondent in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County on December 24, 1987, charging her with possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Case CR 87- 13779 CFANO-1 (Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1987, Respondent, by and through her attorney, entered a plea of not guilty to the charges under which she was arrested (Exhibit 3). A pre-trial hearing in Case 87-13779-CF is scheduled for February 15, 1988 (Exhibit 4).
