The Issue Whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of Petitioner, should be dismissed on charges that he made unwelcome and offensive sexual advances toward several female employees over whom he had authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dan Quinn, has been employed by the School Board for 16 years. From July 1981 until November 1985 (when he was charged with misconduct and suspended from duty), he was employed as a driver trainer. In that position he not only trained school bus drivers, but assigned them school field trips for which they received extra pay. His other job duties included assisting the Supervisor of Transportation in coordinating bus routes and communicating with bus drivers assisting bus drivers with disciplinary problems on buses and riding buses when necessary: assisting mechanics in maintaining service and gas records in gassing buses, obtaining parts, and taking buses to inspection stations: serving as a substitute bus driver when necessary: and "other duties as assigned by the Supervisor of Transportation." (Resp. Exh. 5) The job of bus driver trainer is a non-instructional position. Respondent did not have a written employment contract with the School Board. II. The School Board has adopted Rules 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, internal rules not published in the Florida Administrative Code; which provide grounds and procedures for suspending and dismissing non-instructional school employees: Suspension Procedure The Superintendent has the authority to suspend non-instructional school employees for emergency reasons, and shall notify the Board immediately of such suspension. The suspension shall be reviewed by the Board at its regular or special meeting, at which time the employee shall be restored to duty or the Superintendent shall be authorized to serve noticed on the employee of charges against him and the date and place of hearing before the Board; at which all parties shall be heard on all matters relevant to the suspension and the employee's continued employment. Upon conclusion of the hearing; the Board shall restore the employee to duty, dismiss the employee; or otherwise adopt the recommendations of the Superintendent. For the purpose of this rule the term "emergency" includes, but is not necessarily limited to; any situation arising from the conduct of any Board employee for which the Board may find cause to dismiss the employee, such as immorality, intoxication while on duty, gross insubordination; willful neglect of duty, assaults upon other persons, incompetency, unjustified interruption of the orderly conduct of a school or any school activity, conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude or other misconduct. * * * Dismissal of Employees Dismissal of non-instructional personnel from employment by the Board shall be as follows: * * * If the quality of the employee's work is unsatisfactory and unacceptable, the Superintendent may recommend dismissal of the employee. (Petitioner's Exh.2) III. J.F. has been a bus driver employed by the School Board since 1970. At approximately 6:15 a.m. on one morning in January or February 1983, while she was sweeping her school bus before leaving on her route, Respondent entered the bus and passed her in the aisle. After she was seated in the driver's seat, he approached her and, while standing to her right (in the bus aisle), put his left arm behind her neck and around her left shoulder and placed his hand on the side of her breast. He then tried to kiss her on the right cheek. She told him to "knock it off," and "get off the bus." He complied but, while stepping off the bus, told her that, "If you're not good to me, I don't have to give you all these field trips," referring to the lucrative field trips which he assigned to bus drivers. She was embarrassed and offended, but did not report the incident for fear that she would lose her job. (At that time, she did not know whether Respondent had made similar advances toward other bus drivers: she also believed Respondent to be a good friend of Charlie Horn, the Supervisor to whom she would address her complaint.) (Tr.9) There is no evidence that Respondent ever again made a sexual advance toward J.F. or touched her in an offensive manner. Nor did he carry out his threat to deny her field trips. In school years 1982-83, he assigned her six field trips; in 1983-84, seven. IV. Another incident involving Respondent occurred in 1979 or 1980--five or six years before it was used as grounds to suspend and dismiss him. In the bus garage--at approximately 2:00 p.m. on a school day--Respondent approached M.S., another female bus driver, and asked her what time she would return from her route. She told him and he replied, "well, I'm going to have the air turned on upstairs in the meeting room so you and I can go up there and have some fun," or words to that effect. (Tr.34, 41, 52) She interpreted this as a request for "some kind of sex," and was offended. (Tr.39) She told him that there would be "no way" she would go up there with him. (Tr.41) He laughed and walked away. V. The next incident involving Respondent occurred on a school day in November 1983--two years prior to its being used as a basis for suspending and dismissing him. A.H., another female bus driver, was in the bus barn in Kissimmee. She had recently been hired. As the other drivers left for a field trip to the Tupperware Auditorium, about 8:45-9:45 a.m., Respondent approached and asked her to go upstairs to a classroom with him so he could show her something. She complied and accompanied him to the classroom. Once inside he turned off the lights, shut the door, reached for her and tried to hug her. She switched the lights back on; he turned them off again. She protested that she didn't want to do this; and she didn't "play games like this." (Tr.63) He put his hand on her breast; she tried to push him away. He then tried to slip his hand inside her pants. She switched the lights back on; he switched them off. He then agreed to go downstairs, saying, "Don't be mad now, I was only kidding; only fooling around." (Tr.64) Although his actions were unwelcomed and offended her, she agreed to forget it. Later, he asked her if she was mad; although she was still angry; she said, "No." (Tr.64) She did not report the incident because she was a new employee and feared losing her job or being labeled as a troublemaker. Almost two years later, A.H. had another unpleasant encounter with Respondent. After inviting her to his office and resolving a problem she had with a newly assigned route, he said, "See what I did for you." (Tr.65) He then began hugging her and tried to kiss her. She pushed him away, and tried to go out the door. He held her by the arm; pushed her back against the closed door and began rubbing up against her. He then left, telling her not to be mad, he was just kidding. These advances, also, were unwelcomed and offended her. VI. Another incident occurred in October 1984. Respondent approached M.S., another female bus driver. She was standing in the hallway, he put his arm around her and "took a hold" of her right breast. (Tr.96) She considered this an unwelcomed sexual advance and was offended by it. Later in that school year, Respondent told her that he controlled the assignment of field trips and could "throw a lot of money [her] way." (Tr.97) She replied that she had a second job and did not need field trips. She reasonably interpreted his comment as an implied suggestion that if she submitted to his advances; she would receive employment benefits. VII. J.B. was another female bus driver employed by the School Board. At approximately 6:15 or 6:30 a.m., during a school day toward the end of 1983, she was sitting in the driver's seat on her bus; checking it out before leaving on her route. It was still dark. Respondent entered the bus and placed his hand on her thigh, with his fingers "going down between" her thighs. (Tr.119) She brushed his hand away. She did not report this incident because she thought she would not be believed. VIII. Respondent flatly denies that these incidents ever took place. His denial is rejected as unpersuasive. The testimony of the women who received his unwelcome advances is, however, accepted as credible and worthy of belief. These witnesses had no discernible bias or motive to falsify. They were candid and factual, though it was obviously difficult and embarrassing for them to testify. IX. Except for the complaint of incidents, there is no evidence that Respondent, over the last 16 years, has been other than a responsible and satisfactory employee for the School Board. He never received a bad evaluation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be suspended (without pay) from his employment for one year, commencing in November 1985, and that any reinstatement be conditional upon the availability of a comparable position for which he is qualified. He should not, however; be returned to his former position; and That; within 10 days of entry of a final order, Respondent pay the School Board the sum of $200.00 as attorneys' fees which it incurred in obtaining an order compelling discovery; dated April 15, 1986. D0NE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1986.
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 Whether the School District of Palm Beach County properly suspended Respondent for 15 days and, subsequently, terminated his employment for an incident at the bus facility compound on December 12, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Stipulated Facts Respondent was hired by the School District of Palm Beach County (“District”) on March 9, 2007. At all times relevant to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a School Bus Driver I at the Royal Palm Beach Transportation Facility (“Royal Palm Facility”) with the District. Employee and Labor Relations commenced an investigation on September 9, 2019, that was assigned Case No. 19/20-026. On October 29, 2019, Respondent was notified that the superintendent intended to recommend a 15-day suspension without pay and termination of Respondent’s employment to the Palm Beach County School Board (“School Board”) at the November 20, 2019, School Board meeting. On December 18, 2019, Respondent requested a hearing at DOAH regarding the suspension and termination of his employment. 1 Instead of recapping or summarizing the relevant and material testimony of witnesses, one of the parties submitted a Proposed Recommended Order with Findings of Fact that included and recited significant provisions of the hearing Transcript verbatim. This was not helpful and is contrary to the custom and practice at DOAH. This practice is discouraged in the future. Facts Presented At The Hearing The School Board operates, controls, and supervises the District, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was an experienced bus driver who had been trained in the proper method of interacting with supervisors, co-workers, and students, and exercising good professional judgment, and knew to follow certain rules, policies and directives. Respondent’s employment was governed by: a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the District and Service Employees International Union/Florida Public Services Union (“SEIU/FPSU”)(SB Ex. 77; Resp’t Ex. 11); School Board Policies (SB Exs. 70-74); Florida law (SB Ex. 75); and the School Bus Operators and Bus-Attendant Handbook (SB Ex. 76). Respondent was notified that he was being recommended for termination due to insubordination, ethical misconduct, and failure to follow policies, rules, or directives when he screamed and yelled at Senior Transportation Coordinator Cynthia Holloman (“Holloman”); used profanity, impolite language, and derogatory terms directed at Holloman which were heard by other employees as well; and left a school bus unattended in the middle of the bus driveway. SB Ex. 1; SB Ex. 4 at p. SB000022-35; and Pet’r Admin. Compl. Holloman testified at the hearing and her deposition transcript was filed. She was the senior coordinator at the Royal Palm Facility on December 12, 2018. However, the assignment of buses to the drivers was primarily handled by another employee, Bonnie Smith (“Smith”). As background, Holloman outlined that bus drivers would report to the facility in the morning to pick up their bus. If the driver’s regularly assigned bus was down or inoperative, the bus driver would be reassigned and take a substitute bus. The bus drivers were required to perform a pre-trip inspection each day to look for issues with their assigned bus. The pre-trip inspection would include, among other things, the drivers starting up their assigned bus. If the driver discovered an issue with the bus, the driver was required to fill out a form, bring it inside, and a mechanic would be assigned to fix the problem. If the problem could not be corrected, the driver would be assigned another bus. If another bus was not available, then Petitioner’s staff would assign an available driver a “double route” to cover the route. If a mechanic determined the bus was not safe to operate, then a bus would not be put on the road. Respondent testified that the morning of December 12, 2018, was an unusually cold morning. He had been assigned a bus that he believed did not have a working heater. His indirect concern with the heat not working was that the defroster linked to it would not function properly, creating a potential safety risk for the bus driver and the passengers. That morning, Respondent reported the problem with his assigned bus to Smith, and told her that he would not drive the bus in that condition. Marvin Jackson (“Jackson”), a bus driver at the Royal Palm Facility, also had a problem with the heater not functioning in his bus. Jackson testified that he would carry a rag or paper towels to wipe the windshield when driving. He took this action to operate his bus safely. Jackson indicated that on the morning of December 12, 2018, he also went into the office to complain about his heat not working properly. Leatrice Burroughs (“Burroughs”), another bus driver, testified that she also went to see Holloman on the morning of December 12, 2018, to complain about the heater on her bus not working properly. Holloman was in the dispatch office with Burroughs. Holloman was attempting to locate a bus with a functioning heater for Burroughs when Respondent arrived at the dispatch office. Holloman acknowledged that if the bus defroster was not working and the front windshield was fogging up, it would create a dangerous condition for the bus drivers. When Holloman was inside with Burroughs, Holloman heard Respondent outside raising his voice and cursing at Smith. Holloman agreed that Burroughs was in position where she could have heard Respondent using any profane or inappropriate language outside. Holloman heard Respondent cursing at Smith telling her he would not drive the bus without heat. Burroughs testified that she did not hear Respondent swearing or using any profanity. Holloman then spoke directly with Respondent and explained to him that there were no buses with heat available for him. He angrily responded and told her she was “full of sh_t,” in front of Burroughs. Burroughs denied hearing Respondent say that.2 Holloman related that during this same conversation Respondent, told her to “go f_ck herself” and that she instructed him to punch out and go home. Holloman also stated that Respondent called her a “b_tch,” and said he would park his bus and “sit on the clock.” When Holloman asked him if he was refusing to do his route that morning he replied “I’m not gonna do my route. I’m gonna sit here and I’m gonna get paid for it.” She responded that she was not going to pay him if there was work available and he was not willing to do the work. In response, Respondent told her “to go f_ck herself.” Notably, during this encounter with Holloman, Respondent made no mention or complaint to her about any problem with the defroster, nor did he claim that the bus was unsafe to drive. 2 It was not clear from the evidence what Burroughs’s proximity was to Holloman and Respondent during this discussion. Gary Mosley (“Mosley”), one of Holloman’s supervisors, arrived at the bus facility at some point after the heated exchange began. Respondent came back into the office. Holloman claims that, in the presence of Mosley, Respondent swore at her, at which time she stood up from her desk and told him she was not afraid of him. Mosley testified. He did not recall Louis swearing at Holloman, while he was in the office. However, when he spoke with Respondent outside, Respondent admitted that he said “f_ck you” to Holloman before Mosley arrived. Holloman also stated that Jackson was sitting in a chair right outside her office and could hear everything being said, including Respondent using profanity with her. Jackson testified that he never heard Respondent use any profanity that day. Jeanette Williams, a fellow bus driver, testified that she heard Respondent say he would not drive that “piece of sh_ t” bus. Pet’r Ex. 23. Dorinda Patterson (“Patterson”), another bus driver, provided a written statement for these proceedings. Patterson said that when Respondent left the office area she heard him say he was “not driving that piece of sh_t bus,” because it was “too f_cking cold.” Casandra Joseph (“Joseph”), who was a union steward, testified. She was contacted soon after the incident by Holloman regarding Respondent’s conduct on the morning of December 12, 2018. She was already at the Royal Palm Facility that morning. She spoke to Respondent immediately after the incident. He seemed very upset, was raising his voice, yelling and cursing, and used the word “sh_t.” However, Joseph did not hear what Respondent had said to Holloman earlier. Jose Pacheco (“Pacheco”), the bus shop foreman at the facility, testified. He was responsible for maintenance of the school buses. He testified that bus drivers are supposed to conduct pre- and post-trip inspections of their buses. If a bus driver has an issue during the pre-trip inspection they are required to contact dispatch, and dispatch will contact maintenance to see if they can resolve the matter. If maintenance cannot resolve the matter, they refer the bus driver back to dispatch. Pacheco was present on December 12, 2018, when Respondent complained about the heat not working on his bus. Pacheco testified clearly and distinctly that Respondent was yelling and using profanity. Respondent drove his bus in an area of the bus driveway and left it there, obstructing other bus traffic. His testimony was consistent with the testimony of other employees and was uncontroverted. The undersigned found his recollection of the incident to be particularly unbiased, credible, and persuasive. Of significance, Louis never mentioned to Pacheco that he would not drive his bus because the bus windows would fog up making the bus unsafe. Rather, it was Pacheco’s opinion that Louis was upset because it was too cold and his bus heater did not work properly. Smith, a transportation coordinator, also testified. Smith’s responsibilities included helping bus drivers get their buses on the road, helping with directions, and assisting bus drivers with their paperwork. Smith was assigned to the Royal Palm Facility. Prior to becoming a transportation coordinator, she was a bus driver. Smith testified that on December 12, 2018, she witnessed Respondent screaming at Holloman, stating that he did not want to drive his assigned bus because it was too cold. She overheard Holloman advise Respondent that if he was not going to drive his assigned bus, then he would need to clock out. Smith testified that during his heated exchange with Holloman, Respondent said “he was not driving a f_ cking cold bus.” And then he told her to go and “f_ck herself.” She related that Respondent then said that the administration did not know “how to treat the f_ cking drivers” and that is why he was acting the way he was acting. Because Respondent refused to drive the cold bus, Smith was asked to cover Respondent’s route. However, Respondent never gave Smith any paperwork to document or support his alleged concern with the heater or defroster. Carol Bello, a bus driver assigned to the Royal Palm Facility, also testified. Although she was not certain about the date, she recalled an incident approximately two years ago. Respondent was upset, loud, verbally abusive, and calling people names. She specifically recalled him stating, “F_ck you guys, I’m not driving that piece of sh_t.” She also saw him point his finger at Smith and call her “a bitch,” while ranting and raving in the bus compound around other workers and supervisors. She acknowledged that while some occasional profanity was used by bus drivers while clowning around, people did not talk to their supervisors like that. Joseph, another bus driver, testified that she had been a bus driver for fourteen years. On December 12, 2018, she observed Respondent come out of the office yelling and cursing at Holloman in the dispatch office. Respondent went on and on, cursing at Holloman and being very disrespectful to her. Respondent, Bernard Jean Louis, testified. While he admitted that he was upset that day, he essentially denied all allegations that he cursed at Holloman, or that he refused to follow his supervisor’s instruction. The undersigned did not find this self-serving testimony to be credible or persuasive, particularly considering the contrary and distinct recollection of events by several other trustworthy and more credible witnesses. The undersigned finds that Respondent’s profanity-laced tirade went on for some time and was done in different areas of the dispatch office and the outside areas of the bus compound. It is not surprising that some employees heard parts of Respondent’s outburst, while other employees heard other parts. Nonetheless, what clearly and convincingly emerged from the incident on December 12, 2018, is that Respondent was extremely upset because it was cold and he felt that the heater in his bus did not work properly. As a result of his uncontrollable and growing anger and frustration, he resorted to yelling, arguing, and cursing at his supervisor, Holloman, and failed to follow her directions. The undersigned credits and accepts the testimony of several witnesses on these points. Upon questions from the undersigned to clarify his testimony, Respondent admitted that he had not actually tested or inspected his assigned bus that morning before confronting Holloman about the problem. Rather, he concluded that his bus had an inoperable heater based on how this same bus had operated in the past. While there was a good deal of evidence relating to questions about a drug test taken by Respondent and second-hand evidence regarding the investigative role of other school board employees, this evidence was not particularly useful or relevant in this case.3 Despite no objection by either party to this broad array of other less relevant evidence, the issues in this case are framed and limited to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, to wit: whether Respondent’s conduct or behavior on December 12, 2018, at the bus facility violated the law or school board rules or policies. Christian v. Dep’t of Health, Bd. of Chiropractic Med., 161 So. 3d. 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) and cases cited therein. 3 More directly, the School Board abandoned and did not pursue the drug test as a basis for the termination. Respondent acknowledged this in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. See Joint Pre-Hr’g Stip, § B., p. 2. To the extent other issues need to be resolved, the undersigned finds that the matter is properly before DOAH. Further, there was no persuasive evidence presented to prove that Petitioner failed to exhaust any administrative remedies, violated Respondent’s due process, or that Respondent failed to receive proper or sufficient notice of the conduct being relied upon by the School Board for his proposed suspension or termination. See generally, Fla. Bd. of Massage v. Thrall, 164 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent without pay and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire V. Danielle Williams, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles D. Thomas, Esquire Thompson & Thomas, PA 1801 Indian Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Ms. Ivey from her employment with the Pinellas County School Board.
Findings Of Fact In 2005, Ms. Ivey was hired by the School Board to work as a school bus driver (bus driver). The position of school bus driver is covered by the 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, and SEIU/Florida Public Services Union, CTW-CLC (Collective Bargaining Agreement). One of the many requirements to operate a Pinellas County school bus is to undergo a medical/physical examination every year. Among the physical requirements, bus drivers are to maintain at least 20/40 vision in each eye (with or without corrective lenses). On Wednesday, January 23, 2013, Ms. Ivey underwent her yearly physical examination (exam). As a result of this exam, Ms. Ivey's "Work Status" was "PE on hold," meaning Ms. Ivey was not able to work as a bus driver until some corrective measures involving her eyesight were obtained. Ms. Ivey completed her morning bus routes prior to her exam on January 23. After her exam, Ms. Ivey called in sick and did not complete her afternoon school bus routes. On January 24, Ms. Ivey completed both her morning and afternoon bus routes without incident. However, she took sick leave for the remainder of January 2013 (five work days). Ms. Ivey's first day back from her sick leave was February 4, 2013. Each school bus is equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) monitoring device. Once the school bus is turned on the GPS automatically records the school bus position every 30 seconds. The GPS also records other activities that the school bus performs, e.g., when the amber caution lights are turned on or off, when the red stop lights are turned on or off, when the entrance door opens or closes, etc. Because of the cost of fuel, the School Board's policy is that no school bus idles for more than five minutes. If a bus must idle for more than five minutes, the bus driver is required to turn off the bus until it needs to move. Each school bus is required to stop at each assigned bus stop whether or not a student is present. This is to maintain the published schedule for subsequent school bus riders. Each school bus is also equipped with a two-way radio for constant communication with Petitioner's transportation dispatchers. In the event of an incident (or accident), there is an additional emergency channel for use by the dispatcher and the affected school bus driver. Prior to each school year, school bus drivers are provided training in how to handle an incident (or accident). When an incident occurs, the driver is to immediately contact the transportation dispatcher, remain at the scene of the incident, ensure the safety of the students, and cooperate fully with the investigation. The bus driver is to complete an incident report and turn it in to the transportation division before the end of the incident day. The school bus that Ms. Ivey drove on February 4, 2013, was equipped with the two-way radio and the GPS. Ms. Ivey's published/authorized school bus route (for the middle school pick-up) started at 8:15 a.m. each morning when she was to pick up her riding assistant, Courtney McClendon,3/ at 102nd Avenue and Seminole Boulevard. This stop was in a large parking lot, close to a Little Caesar's restaurant (restaurant). The second bus stop, where the first student was to be picked up, was located at 97th Street North and Lake Seminole Drive East (corner location). Without the School Board's permission or authorization, Ms. Ivey unilaterally changed her school bus route to begin with the student pick-up at the corner location. On February 4, Ms. Ivey began her middle school bus route at the corner location. According to the GPS, Ms. Ivey entered the corner location neighborhood at 8:32 a.m., and could not have been at the designated corner location bus stop at 8:18 a.m. The student rider was not at the corner location when the school bus arrived. There was no indication, via the GPS, that either the amber caution or red stop lights were activated for this stop, or that the entrance door opened or closed to allow a student to enter the bus. Ms. Ivey turned the school bus onto 97th Street and stopped at the red light at 102nd Avenue (stop light corner). As Ms. Ivey was looking left (in order to turn right), she heard a knock on the school bus door, but did not see the student. Ms. Ivey completed the right-turn onto 102nd Avenue West and then, in her right rear-view mirror noticed a student falling down. Ms. Ivey did not immediately stop the school bus, but drove to the restaurant approximately two minutes away. There, Ms. Ivey turned on her amber lights and opened the door for Ms. McClendon to board the school bus. While at the restaurant, Ms. Ivey radioed Petitioner's transportation dispatcher that she might have hit a student. Ms. Ivey left the restaurant and drove back to the corner location. Despite having a two-way radio on board the school bus and repeated attempts by the dispatcher to contact her, Ms. Ivey and the dispatcher failed to communicate again for over 45 minutes. Upon notification of the incident, the transportation dispatcher switched to the emergency frequency; however, Ms. Ivey stayed on the regular two-way radio frequency. Two transportation supervisors were immediately dispatched to investigate the incident at the restaurant, as this was the location where the incident was reported. Once they arrived, the supervisors were unable to locate the school bus, Ms. Ivey, or Ms. McClendon (the trio) at or near the restaurant. In an effort to locate the trio, the supervisors traveled to several more school bus stops, but only found students waiting for the school bus.4/ After searching for over 45 minutes, the supervisors finally located the trio at the corner location. At that time the transportation supervisors determined that the stop light corner location was where the incident actually occurred. One week after the incident, on February 11, Ms. Ivey completed and turned in the "DRIVER'S REPORT OF INCIDENT." Petitioner's field operations supervisor, Ms. Cross had to make repeated requests to Ms. Ivey to get her to turn in the report. On three separate occasions, Ms. Ivey was noticed to appear at the Office of Professional Standards to answer questions regarding the January medical issue and the February 4th incident. At the meeting on February 20, 2013, Ms. Ivey refused to answer questions about either matter. During the second meeting on February 28, shortly after the meeting began, Ms. Ivey asked to use the restroom, left the room, and never returned to complete the meeting. Although she was noticed for the third meeting to begin at 7:30 a.m. on March 4, Ms. Ivey did not arrive for that meeting until after 3:00 p.m. During this third meeting, Ms. Ivey again refused to answer questions about either matter. Ms. Ivey's employment disciplinary history with the School Board is as follows: 02/08/10 Ms. Ivey received a "Conference Summary" for failing to correct performance deficiencies; 02/18/10 Ms. Ivey received a Conference Summary" for failing to comply with board policy, state law, or appropriate contractual agreement; 10/20/11 Ms. Ivey received a "Caution" for failing to comply with board policy, state law, or the appropriate contractual agreement and misconduct; 05/23/12 Ms. Ivey received a "Reprimand" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies; 12/15/12 Ms. Ivey received a "Reprimand" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies; and 02/20/13 Ms. Ivey received a "Conference Summary" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies. Despite repeated opportunities to provide her version of the events, Ms. Ivey declined to present her case in a manner that would warrant serious consideration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner terminate Ms. Ivey's employment as a school bus driver as a consequence of her repeated violations of School Board Policies 4140 A.9, A.9a., A.19., A.20., A.22., and A.24. The violation of any one of these subsections, standing alone, is sufficiently severe so as to warrant Ms. Ivey's termination from employment as a school bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2013, 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 20th day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Bush, should have been terminated from his employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact l. Petitioner James Bush was employed as a bus driver by the Broward County School Board until May 17, 1978. Mr. Bush was notified by letter from Mr. Stan McCall, Director of Personnel, that his employment was terminated as of May 17, 1978, for unsatisfactory performance. Mr. Bush petitioned for an administrative hearing. According to the testimony of Mrs. Teems, the South Area Supervisor of the Transportation Department of the Respondent School Board, she observed bus #165 while she was driving at about 10:30 a.m. on June 2, 1976. The operator of bus #165 was driving in an erratic manner and speeding. Mrs. Geraldine Thornton, the immediate supervisor of Petitioner, testified that James Bush was the driver of bus #165 on that day. Mr. Sal Re, a School Board employee with the Department of Safety, testified that on September 7, 1977, bus #169 ran two stop signs without reducing speed by any perceptible degree. He said the driver was exceeding the speed limit by about five miles per hour. Mrs. Thornton testified that on that date bus #169 was operated by the Petitioner, James Bush. Mrs. Muriel Taylor, a substitute teacher for Respondent, testified that on April 5, 1978, in the early afternoon, bus #208 almost caused a head-on collision by improperly merging lanes immediately in front of the vehicle Mrs. Taylor was operating. Mrs. Taylor testified that she wrote down the number of the bus and reported this incident to a school authority by reference to bus #208. Respondent's Exhibit "B," in the handwriting of Geraldine Thornton, and the testimony of Geraldine Thornton established that the assigned driver of bus #208 on the date of the incident was Petitioner. Elizabeth Pearlman, a student assigned to ride Petitioner's bus, testified that she was returned to school after having passed her assigned bus stop without stopping, and that Petitioner Bush made her get off the bus at school at 6:10 p.m. without taking measures for her safety and welfare. Another student, Janis Kaden, substantiated the facts of the incident and testified that Miss Pearlman got off the bus at the school building, and the driver drove away. An unauthorized passenger, student Willie Holmes, on May 16, 1978, boarded the bus operated by Petitioner Bus in the parking area immediately adjacent to the bus compound and traveled with Petitioner to at least one school before traveling the route with Mr. Bush to the school attended by Willie Holmes. Willie Holmes was not authorized to ride the bus with Mr. Bush and was not authorized to ride the bus with Mr. Bush on the route to one or more schools which the student did not attend. It was established by the testimony of Lawrence Insel, Administrative Assistant at Karl High School, that Petitioner was uncooperative on the rainy afternoon of April 14, 1978, Petitioner blocked the bus loading area by improperly parking and caused noise and confusion, and caused the school children to run in the rain to board his bus and to board several other blocked buses. The Administrator talked with the Petitioner at the time, but the Petitioner refused to move. Mr. Insel also testified that the Petitioner had at one time refused, when requested, to go get a disabled bus. Joseph Vargo, Principal at Coconut Creek Elementary School, testified that Petitioner would come into his office without asking to enter and use the office telephone, and that he had more problems with the school children than did the other drivers. Mr. Vargo also testified that, although he counseled with Petitioner, he was not able to help Petitioner relate better to the school children and to other school personnel. Petitioner James Bush presented an evaluation to show that in April of 1978, he received an above-average evaluation. Petitioner denied driving bus #165 on the date of Mrs. Muriel Taylor's report of improper driving of said bus. He testified that he had not driven on one of the streets on which Mr. Sal Re reported he had observed Petitioner driving. Mr. Re had reported that Petitioner had driven through two red lights on September 7, 1977, and had exceeded the speed limit. Petitioner stated that Elizabeth Pearlman was argumentative, and that he went by her bus stop and returned her to school, which was about two miles from her bus stop. Petitioner said he reported the incident about 45 minutes later to the school personnel after he had left the student at the school. There was no evidence of the report. Petitioner stated he tried to keep order on his bus but the children were from time to time smoking, swearing, cursing and falsely accusing him of using marijuana. Petitioner said he took candy from the children to keep the bus clean. He testified that "I don't hear you if you talk at me rather than talk to me." Petitioner was furnished a copy of the Broward County School Bus Driver's Training Manual. Petitioner signed a statement of receipt of the manual and agreed to read it and abide by all instructions, laws, rules and regulations set forth therein. Included in the manual are rules and regulations governing the employment of bus drivers and instructions to be followed for the safety and welfare of bus riders. After hearing the testimony of the various witnesses and of the Petitioner, and upon observing the demeanor of those testifying and examination of the evidence submitted, the Hearing Officer further finds: That the witnesses for the Respondent, Broward County School Board, are truthful and dedicated to the safety and welfare of school children; That some of the employees, including his immediate supervisor, have tried to counsel with Petitioner and help him during the period of his employment; That Petitioner has been a problem to the school employees with whom he worked; that at times he was disrespectful to his supervisor and other employees; that he failed to fill out work sheets; that he failed on at least one occasion to report for work for several days without notice to the person in charge of school buses; that he failed to keep control of the children riding his bus and on at least one occasion failed to let a student off at her bus stop and intentionally returned her to school; that he failed at times to drive his bus in a safe and careful manner; and that he failed to do many of the necessary things to keep the work running smoothly, such as checking his mail box, returning keys, leaving a telephone number at which he could be located, and promptly and accurately making reports. His above-average evaluation appears to have been an effort to encourage a better performance.
Recommendation Affirm the termination of Petitioner, James Bush, from his employment as a school bus driver. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Press, Esquire Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc. 609 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 James T. Moore, Esquire 1265 NW 40th Avenue Lauderhill, Florida 33313
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
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment for an altercation he was involved in that occurred on his bus.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence credited by the undersigned at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Wint has been employed by the School Board as a school bus driver for approximately 15 years. There was no evidence presented that Wint had been disciplined for any prior instances of misconduct as a bus driver. Wint is covered as an employee under the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (CBA), which provides that rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent . . . include . . . separation, suspension, dismissal and termination of employees for just cause. Pet. Ex. 1, § 3. School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, 4213, and 8600 were entered as exhibits and apply to Wint's employment.1/ Pet. Exs. 2–5. The School Board issued a Handbook for School Bus Drivers and Bus Aides (Handbook) for the 2017-2018 school year, which applies to Respondent's employment. The Handbook was admitted into evidence.2/ Pet. Ex. 6. School Bus Incident on October 10, 2017 To summarize, on October 10, 2017, Wint was transporting a large group of middle school students on his school bus. Due to a disruption by one of the students, Wint felt it was necessary to pull the bus over. Wint stopped the bus and went to the back to confront a 13-year-old, 8th-grade male student who had intentionally and unnecessarily opened the bus's emergency window, setting off the bus alarm.3/ A video of segments of the confrontation was recorded by students and entered into evidence. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Petitioner's Exhibit 16 is video coverage of the first part of the physical altercation between Wint and the male student. Petitioner's Exhibit 15 is video coverage of the second part of the physical altercation, after both had moved back down the bus aisle to return to their respective seats on the bus.4/ With respect to the details, the incident unfolded as follows: while the bus was in motion, the male student left his assigned seat without permission, went to the back of the bus, and opened the emergency exit window, causing the bus's audible alarm to sound.5/ Wint was required to immediately stop the bus to address the emergency alarm going off. Instead of directly calling dispatch as stated in the Handbook, Wint went to the back of the bus to confront the student, order him back to his assigned seat, assess the situation, and determine the best course of action. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16; Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c). Wint went to the back of the bus and confronted the male student. The altercation started when the male student rose up slightly out of the bus seat and punched Wint in the stomach several times. This evidence was uncontradicted. No other testimony or documents were offered to rebut this evidence. (These initial moments of the confrontation are not on the videos.) The first part of the cellphone video is shot from an elevated angle from the rear bus seat and starts by showing the two locked up, struggling in the back of the bus. Wint has his hands on the male student pulling him up forcefully and attempting to push the male student back up the aisleway to the front of the bus where his seat was located, and away from the other students. The male student pulled free from Wint's grasp and started up the aisleway. However, he turned around immediately and tried to shove Wint. Another male student interceded and restrained the male student by temporarily putting him in a headlock. When this occurred, Wint held back in the aisleway near the rear of the bus, watching and collecting himself. After the initial confrontation in the back of the bus, the second cellphone video picks up the action from a different angle (shooting from the middle of the bus towards the back). Several other students intervened to keep Wint and the male student separated. The male student tried to start up the altercation again and attempted to break through several students to get back at Wint. Wint is standing cornered in the back of the bus with his back to the emergency exit. While all this is going on, there is general pandemonium inside the bus with the other 20 to 25 students watching, yelling, or jeering at the scene. Notably, several of the other students appear frightened or alarmed and are very close to the altercation as it unfolds. The mid-bus cellphone video shows the male student turning around to head back up the bus aisleway. The male student is visibly angry, very upset, and is seen forcefully pounding his fists together defiantly as he walks. Wint is off camera, but the undersigned reasonably infers that Wint is behind the male student following him back up towards the front of the bus. As he walks up the aisleway in front of Wint, in an overt display of strong aggression and uncontrollable anger, the male student leans across a bus seat and violently punches a school bus window with his clenched fist.6/ Pet. Ex. 15. As Wint came down the narrow aisle behind the student and attempted to squeeze past him to continue to the driver's seat, Wint accidentally brushed against the male student.7/ At that point, the video shows the male student rapidly wheel around and the two begin to tussle, hands on each other, in the bus seat. Wint backs the male student up into the bus seat, closer to the window. Wint has both hands near, but not on, the neck area of the male student. There is no punching or swinging, just restraining and controlling. The more persuasive and credible evidence does not support the School Board's claim that Wint was intentionally choking the student with a pressure hold around his neck, nor holding the male student around the neck with his hands. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that Wint is attempting to control and restrain the student by holding him firmly by the collar of his jacket/sweatshirt.8/ At the end, when a female student jumped in to separate the two, Wint abruptly released his hold and headed back to his driver's seat. The cellphone video ends at that point. Although the evidence was conflicting, it revealed, and the undersigned credits, that Wint had previously notified the Miami-Dade County School District (District) in writing that this particular male student had been repeatedly disruptive on his bus. Specifically, Wint complained in writing on or about October 4, 2017, that the same male student had been improperly opening the window and throwing objects outside the bus. His report was on a standard reporting form required by the School Board. It is called Student Case Management Referral, No. 723119. This other reported incident occurred on or about September 29, 2017, several days before the altercation. Resp. Ex. 1. The Student Case Management Referral form turned in by Wint was initialed by a District employee on October 4, 2017, just days before this bus incident on October 10, 2017.9/ Susan Detmold is the district director for Transportation Services since 2013. Detmold viewed the two videos of the altercation between Respondent and the male student. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Detmold opined that it was inappropriate behavior for a bus driver to engage in the behavior exhibited in the videos. Detmold testified that if a student is not sitting in his assigned seat, then the school bus driver should give warnings and provide a misconduct referral to the District.10/ She also testified that in accordance with State Board Rule, only the school principals have the authority to discipline students.11/ Detmold testified that the Handbook provides drivers with procedures to follow when handling student misconduct on the bus. Pet. Ex. 6, §§ 10.06-10.07, pp. 94-96. The Handbook states that school bus drivers can stop the bus if the behavior is a serious one. Drivers will immediately contact their Dispatch Office by two-way radio and provide them with details of the situation. Drivers are to await the aid of the field operations specialist or school police. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c), p. 94. Wint disregarded this guideline in the Handbook and testified that he stopped the bus, went to the back of the bus to confront the student, but did not call Dispatch for school police until after the physical altercation with the male student had ended. The Handbook states in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.0171, State Board Rule, it is the responsibility of the bus driver [t]o maintain order and discipline, under the direction of the school principal, on the part of every passenger. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.03(i), p. 13. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted, by his actions, to maintain order and safety on the bus in the face of a very unruly, aggressive, and violent male student who was putting the safety of the bus, the bus driver, and other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus driver is responsible for the safety of the children in his/her care. A driver should place the safety, health, and well-being of his/her passengers above everything else while they are on the bus. Drivers shall maintain a professional attitude. Drivers should be patient, firm, fair, and friendly. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(e), p.15. The Handbook also states, in part, the school bus drivers will make a reasonable effort to deal with infractions of the rules of student conduct and will, to the best of their ability, maintain order and good behavior by students on their buses. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(o), p. 17. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted during this incident to maintain order and safety on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus drivers must not touch or put [their] hands on students. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.06(a), p. 21. The videos show that Wint did indeed lay his hands on the student, but the undersigned finds that this was done to restrain and control a very unruly and violent student, who presented a safety risk to the operation of the bus and other students on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, school bus drivers will not physically discipline . . . any student. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.07(d), p. 96. The videos do not show that Wint physically disciplined a student. Rather, he justifiably attempted to control a violent, angry, and uncontrollable student who placed his safety and the safety of other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Ultimate Findings of Fact Under the facts outlined herein, the undersigned finds that Wint's actions and conduct during this incident conformed with sections 1006.10 and 1012.45, Florida Statutes. The undersigned finds that the School Board's rules, policies, and Handbook provisions proscribe conduct authorized or required by sections 1006.10 and 1012.45 for a bus driver dealing with an unruly and violent student in an emergency situation. To the extent they do so, they are invalid and not controlling.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County immediately reinstating Respondent, Livingston Wint, to his position as school bus driver and provide him with back pay and other accumulated benefits since his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations grant Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was born on March 31, 1936, in Trinidad- Tobago. He migrated to the United States in 1974. In or around May 1993, when he was 57 years old, Petitioner applied for a position as a school bus driver with Respondent and was subsequently hired. Respondent is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public instruction and related services, including transportation services, to school-aged children in the county. Respondent provides transportation services through its Transportation Department. Jerry Klein has headed the Transportation Department (as its Administrative Director) since 1993. The Transportation Department operates eight transportation centers throughout the county. Assigned to these eight transportation centers are a total of approximately 1,530 school bus drivers, who range in age from 22 to 77, with most being over 40. The current job description for the position of school bus driver has been in effect since March 9, 1999. It provides that school bus drivers must meet the following "physical requirements" and "minimum qualifications requirements": PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS This is light work which requires the following physical activities: sitting, standing, walking, climbing, twisting, reaching, grasping, talking, hearing and visual acuity. Heavy lifting, pushing, and pulling may occasionally be required. Work is performed indoors and outdoors and worker is subject to noise, heat, fumes and vibration. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS Must hold a valid Commercial Driver's License, have a minimum of five (5) years licensed driving experience, and have an excellent driving record. Must be able to pass the examinations and tests required by the State of Florida to obtain a Class B Commercial Driver's License with a Passenger Transport Endorsement, without air brake restriction. Must have an acceptable background check. Must be able to pass a prescribed reflex test, physical examination, and drug test. Must be able to deal with stressful situations on a frequent basis. Must have completed eighth grade and have a demonstrated ability to read, write, and understand written instructions in English. High school diploma or GED preferred. Must be able to pass the Basic School Bus Training Course given by Miami-Dade County Public Schools Department of Transportation in accordance with Rule 6A- 3.0141 of the State of Florida Board of Education.[2] Good knowledge of county geography. In 1993, in response to "several media reports" that some of its school bus drivers "were driving with suspended licenses and [had] other types of problems with their driving record[s]," Respondent developed and reduced to writing criteria to be used to screen the driving records of applicants for school bus driver positions (Screening Criteria), criteria which, in all material respects, it still uses today. The document in which these Screening Criteria are set forth is entitled, "Screening of Driving Records for Prospective School Bus Drivers for M-DCPS and Private Company Drivers," and it reads, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * Each individual's transcript of Driver Record will be screened in accordance with the guidelines and criteria established by this document. The entire driving record will be checked for purposes of determining an individual's acceptability or unacceptability to drive a school bus for M-DCPS. The screening process will be conducted prior to employment for M-DCPS drivers and annually as part of the annual re-certification for all drivers operating under contract to M-DCPS. Points will be assigned for each entry on the Transcript of Driver Record in accordance with the Appendix attached to this document, and Paragraph 2 above. Individuals will not be approved to drive a school bus for M-DCPS if they have: More than three (3) district assigned points during the past year More than six (6) points during the past three (3) years More than nine (9) points during the past five (5) years or More than twenty five (25) district assigned points total, on the entire record. * * * 6. The Administrative Director, Department of Transportation, or his designee, may make exception to the guidelines above, as circumstances warrant. Drivers who are disqualified under the above guidelines may further appeal the decision to the Chief Business Officer. * * * APPENDIX DRIVING VIOLATION POINTS ASSESSED BY DISTRICT VIOLATION POINTS SPEEDING UP TO 14 MPH OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT 3 15 MPH OR MORE, OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT 4 IN A SCHOOL ZONE 3 DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS 3 * * * FAILING TO COMPLY WITH STOP SIGN 3 FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC INSTRUCTION/DEVICE 3 * * * IMPROPER TURNING 3 * * * SEAT BELT VIOLATION . . . . 1 CARELESS OR IMPROPER DRIVING 3 * * * 22. AT-FAULT ACCIDENT 2 * * * Note: The district assesses points under this plan for all entries, regardless of conviction status or state disposition. Although Mr. Klein, as the Transportation Department's Administrative Director, has had the authority to "make exception[s]" to these Screening Criteria, he has never done so. Petitioner worked as an hourly school bus driver from June 10, 1993, until January 1994, when he became a full-time school bus driver, a position he held for approximately seven and a half years.3 During his employment as a school bus driver with Respondent, Petitioner was involved in several vehicular accidents while on duty in his school bus. After one such accident, which occurred on August 9, 1999, Petitioner was suspended without pay by Respondent for failing to report the accident.4 The suspension began February 10, 2000, and ended March 13, 2000. Petitioner's most recent accident as a school bus driver occurred March 26, 2001. Because the accident was deemed to have been "preventable," Petitioner was directed to complete retraining before resuming his school bus driver duties. Petitioner began his retraining on May 16, 2001. He was unable to successfully complete the retraining, although given adequate time and a fair opportunity to do so. On June 5, 2001, after Petitioner had had eight days of retraining5 (one in the classroom and seven on the road), Richard Rothberg, a Coordinator II for Operations and Training with Respondent, advised Petitioner that he "wasn't meeting the qualifications" to remain a school bus driver and asked him if he "would be willing to accept a demotion to a bus aide position so that he could retain his employment with [Respondent]." Mr. Rothberg told Petitioner that if he rejected the offer of a demotion, Petitioner's "case would be referred to the OPS [Office of Professional Standards]" and "he could be terminated." Petitioner's age played no role whatsoever in Mr. Rothberg's decision to end Petitioner's retraining and give him the choice to resign from his position as a school bus driver and take a bus aide position or face the possible termination of his employment with Respondent. Petitioner opted to resign from his school bus driver position and accept a position as a bus aide rather than risk not having any job with Respondent. In his letter of resignation, Petitioner wrote that he was resigning because he had "fail[ed] driver retraining." Respondent accepted Petitioner's resignation and appointed him to a bus aide position, effective June 15, 2001, as Petitioner had requested in his letter of resignation, a position in which he has remained. In or around May 2004, Petitioner, through a union representative, John Nochi, contacted Mr. Rothberg's successor, Chris Dowda, to express Petitioner's interest in becoming a school bus driver again. Mr. Nochi, on Petitioner's behalf, asked Mr. Dowda "to check [Petitioner's] driving record to see if he would be qualified to be a school bus driver." On May 14, 2004, Mr. Dowda obtained a print out of Petitioner's driving record (as maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) and "screened it." Applying the Screening Criteria, Mr. Dowda determined, correctly, that Petitioner had accumulated a total of more than 25 district-assigned points over the period of his licensure and that he therefore was not qualified to be a school bus driver. Mr. Dowda thereafter telephoned Mr. Nochi and "told him what the results were" of the screening. Mr. Dowda had "numerous [follow-up telephone] conversations" with Mr. Nochi, who had "a lot of questions" concerning the Screening Criteria. During one of these telephone conversations, which took place sometime prior to the end of 2004, Mr. Dowda, in attempting to explain why the Screening Criteria were developed, posited the following: If there [are] bus driver[s] with a lot of citations on their record and they go out and they get into an accident and there are students injured on the bus and . . . the media gets a hold of their driving record we will see on the news, the media holding [it] up and say[ing], "Look who's driving for ou[r] district right now." Unbeknownst to Mr. Dowda, Petitioner was present in the same room as Mr. Nochi and listening on a speakerphone to what Mr. Dowda was saying to Mr. Nochi. Mr. Nochi also contacted Mr. Klein and requested him to "review the driving record of [Petitioner] and see whether it would be acceptable to bring [Petitioner] back as a school bus driver." After conducting the requested review and determining that Petitioner had "a terrible driving record with more than 25 points assessed based on a long history of driving infractions," Mr. Klein informed Mr. Nochi that he "was not prepared to bring [Petitioner] back as a school bus driver because [Petitioner] didn't meet the minimum requirements of the [S]creening [C]riteria to become a school bus driver," adding that these requirements were not "waive[d] . . . for anybody."6 Effective 2005, all school bus drivers in the state needed to have (as they still do today) a school bus driver endorsement on their commercial driver's license. That year (2005), Petitioner went to Northwestern High School to take a written test, administered by Respondent, to obtain such an endorsement, but was told that he was not eligible to, and therefore could not, take the test. Petitioner subsequently took the test at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles driver's license office in Pembroke Pines and received a passing score. On August 23, 2005, he was issued a commercial driver's license with a school bus driver endorsement. Petitioner subsequently went to Mr. Klein and showed him the newly issued license. Mr. Klein responded to being shown the license by repeating what he had told Mr. Nochi concerning Petitioner's having "too many points on his driving record" to be qualified under the Screening Criteria to become a school bus driver with Respondent. Although he has made inquiries about the possibility of his regaining a school bus driver position with Respondent, Petitioner has not submitted an official application for such a position at any time following his demotion. Under the hiring system Respondent has developed, the filing of an application is a prerequisite to becoming a school bus driver. On March 27, 2006, following his meeting with Mr. Klein, Petitioner filed the employment discrimination charge against Respondent which is the subject of the instant proceeding. The "particulars" of the charge were described by Petitioner as follows: I believe that I was discriminated against because of my age, 69. Chris Dadow [sic] made a derogatory comment about look who's driving our school buses. I was instructed to go and get a new license, and I complied. Mr. Chris Dadow [sic] refused to give me the driving test so I [could] become a School Bus Driver. I was ultimately denied the opportunity for employment. In fact, it was Petitioner's driving record, not his age, that prompted Mr. Dowda, as well as Mr. Klein, to take the positions they did, following Petitioner's demotion, regarding his ineligibility to fill any vacant school bus driver position. The comment made by Mr. Dowda about which Petitioner complained in his charge had nothing to do with Petitioner's, or anyone else's, age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of September, 2007.
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
