The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violations of Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The resolution of this issue rests upon determinations of whether Respondent used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage, contrary to provisions of Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c) , Florida Administrative Code; and whether Respondent failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Nannette V. Ramey. She holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 408980 covering the areas of elementary education and school principal. The certificate was issued on July 1, 1976, and was renewed shortly before the final hearing in this case. During the 1988-89 school year Ramey was employed as the principal of Oceanway Elementary School by the Duval County School Board in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Ramey produced a publication on school paper in black ink which set forth helpful hints to teachers at the school regarding educational techniques. The publication was entitled "Teacher's Tips" and was similar to the commercial teacher information booklet, "Master Teacher." The commercial booklet had been purchased and distributed at the direction of Ramey's predecessor at the school during the previous school year. Once a week during the 1988-89 school year at Oceanway Elementary, a copy of the "Teacher's Tips" publication was placed in each teacher's mailbox for their assistance. An industrious individual who likes a good deal, including real estate ventures, Ramey felt that she could sell subscriptions to the "Teacher's Tips." In January of 1989, Ramey began developing the idea of a commercial "Teacher's Tips." In March of 1989, she began acquiring subscribers to "Teacher's Tips" outside of Duval County through magazine advertisements and personal contacts. Ramey's commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" was distributed outside of Duval County, carried an annual subscription price tag of $9.99, and was distributed in Florida, Ohio and Canada. While printed on the same size paper as the free in- school version of the publication, the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" was tri-folded and displayed Ramey's name as publisher along with her post office box number. During the 1988-89 school year, Ramey employed a teacher's assistant to work for her. The assistant was named Donna Avera. Avera's duties included running the copy machine, ordering school supplies and other general duties. During the course of the school day, Ramey gave Avera items to copy for her. Avera's office also served as the storeroom for school supplies and paper. On some occasions during the spring of the 1988-89 school year, Ramey would instruct Avera to use school supplied colored paper and run copies of the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" for Ramey. Ramey also directed Avera to attempt to copy addresses of subscribers to the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" onto blank mailing labels through use of the school copying machine. Avera's attempts with the copy machine in this respect were less than perfect with some names overlapping on some labels, but Ramey used the labels anyway. Ramey also instructed Avera during school hours to fold copies of the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" for subsequent mailing. On one occasion in the spring of 1989, a copy machine company representative temporarily placed a demonstrator copier at the school at Ramey's request. The copier was at the school from May 9 through May 29, 1989. Ramey planned in advance to use the demonstrator copier for her personal use, recognizing what she termed "a perfect opportunity". She even purchased paper in anticipation of running off commercial copies of "Teacher's Tips" on the machine. The copier also possessed the capability to print different color inks. For instance, the version of the "Teacher's Tips" used within the school was printed on white or blue paper with black ink. The commercial version of the publication was run off in blue, pink, green, yellow and goldenrod colored paper. Avera assisted Ramey one day when the demonstrator copier jammed by unjamming the machine and running off numerous copies of the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips." During the period of time when the demonstrator copier was at the school, Avera noticed on each Monday that someone had evidently been there over the weekend making copies of the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips". Avera found copies of the commercial version jammed in the copy machine, the trash can, and spread out on a table. Notes bearing Ramey's initials would be found on the copier apologizing for jamming the machine. Another teacher's assistant, Nancy Gately, observed different colored paper being used in the copy room, along with placement of white identification cards bearing Ramey's name in booklets for Ramey to distribute during a trip. The booklets had colored commercial "Teacher's Tips" with them. Gately and Avera spent one day preparing them. The quantity of the booklets was sufficient to cover a cafeteria table. Avera ran errands for Ramey. Some of the errands were school related, other errands were personal to Ramey's needs. Avera sought travel reimbursement from the school bookkeeper. Ramey, overhearing Avera's request for reimbursement, called Avera into her office and offered the use of a private car in which to do the errands. Avera subsequently made inquiry with an attorney for the teacher's union regarding her right to receive travel expense reimbursement. She revealed the nature of her errands and that she was assisting Ramey in the preparation and dispersal of the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips." As a result of her revelations to the attorney, Avera learned she was participating in improper activities. After Avera's visit to the attorney for the teacher's union, Ramey confronted Avera in late September or early October of 1989. She advised Avera that the matter of mileage reimbursement should be immediately dropped. The relationship between the two women deteriorated rapidly after Ramey's confrontation with Avera. Eventually, Avera instituted a grievance against Ramey by letter dated February 22, 1990. The letter recounted various altercations between the two individuals in January and February of 1990. On one occasion, Ramey remarked to the school bookkeeper, Ms. Dale Mahan, that the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" was doing well. Ramey told Mahan that the success of such a venture involved finding a product that did well, then copying and selling your own version of it. Ramey was observed at various times by Mahan folding and addressing the commercial version of "Teacher's Tips" while on school time. Mahan was the custodian of copy records for the maintenance agreements for the copy machine at the school. She gave these records to her successor, Vickie King, who became the bookkeeper in the fall of 1989. After King became the bookkeeper, Avera requested that King should examine the copy machine records in King's possession and ascertain that the records were complete. King reviewed the records and confirmed to Avera that they were complete. Later, Ramey asked King for all of the copying records and took them with her. Upon returning the records to King, the written records from the prior year concerning the monthly number of how much paper was used was not in the file. These records provided documentation regarding whether the school was staying within the copy limits of the maintenance agreement. If copy numbers exceeded the number established in the agreement, an additional copying charge would levied against the school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of misconduct through the use of institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage and failure to maintain honesty in professional dealings, violations of Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c) and Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such Final Order place Respondent's license on probation for a period of three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including a condition that Respondent enroll in and successfully complete six hours of continuing education courses in the subject area of ethics in public administration. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-11. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 12.-13. Rejected; unnecessary. 14.-50. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 5l.-52. Rejected; Unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1. Accepted. 2.-3. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. Rejected, creditability. 6.-7. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 8. Rejected, unnecessary. 9.-10. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence, as to allegations that Avera's testimony supports finding that use of school copier was solely limited to after school hours. 11.-12. Addressed. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, argumentative, not support by weight of the evidence. 15.-16. Rejected, creditability. 17.-22. Rejected, argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane T. Burnett, Esq. 331 East Union Street Suite 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Charles F. Henley, Jr., Esq. 111 Riverside Avenue Suite 330 Jacksonville, FL 32204 George A. Bowen Acting Exec. Dir. 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Respondent, Everest University (the "School"), discriminated against Petitioner, Hashim Aboudaya, on the basis of his place of natural origin (Middle Eastern), race (Caucasian), and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act by twice failing to promote Petitioner to the position of associate dean or director of Student Services; and Whether the School retaliated against Petitioner based on his place of natural origin, race, and/or religion by refusing to pay for his doctoral level college courses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male, born in Lebanon and, therefore, of Middle Eastern heritage. He is a practicing Muslim. In July 2003, Petitioner began teaching as an adjunct professor at the School, teaching computer information services and teaching a few classes per year. In or around August 2007, Petitioner was promoted to senior network administrator, a non-teaching position, for the School. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served in that position. He currently teaches classes on an as-needed basis also. The School is a private college formerly known as Florida Metropolitan University. There are ten related campuses in the State of Florida, with one being in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The Melbourne campus has two locations, one on Sarno Road and the "main" campus on U.S. Highway 1. Petitioner holds two master's degrees, one in management and one in computer resources and information management, from Webster University in Saint Louis, Missouri. He is pursuing a third master's degree, but it is "on hold" pending his completion of studies in a doctoral program. The doctoral program being sought by Petitioner is in the field of business administration with a major field of study in computer security. The degree is being pursued on-line through Capella University based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Petitioner's resume indicates that the Ph.D. will be "done in the end of 2007," but it has obviously taken longer than planned. Petitioner has applied for several vacancies listed at the School, but for purposes of this proceeding, the following are relevant: (1) The associate academic dean position advertised in January 2010; (2) The associate academic dean position advertised in April 2010; and (3) The director of Student Services position advertised in August 2009. Associate Academic Dean Positions The following qualifications were specified in the School's job description for the associate academic dean positions. The applicant must: Possess the necessary academic credentials and work related experience mandated by the Company, State accreditation agencies and any other regulatory agency that monitors compliance. Have a minimum of 2 years practical work experience in business or education. Have a minimum of 1 year teaching experience, but The years of experience may be waived at the sole discretion of the college president so long as the incumbent meets the accreditations, State and Federal requirements necessary to hold the position. There was also a job posting (as opposed to a job description) for the associate dean position on a website associated with Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("CCI"), the School's parent company. That job posting indicated that a master's degree was required for the job and included other requirements not set out in the School's official job description. The college president, Mark Judge, could not verify the accuracy of the job posting. There is no persuasive, credible evidence that the job posting was produced by the School or intended to be used as the basis for filling the associate dean position. The first associate dean position was for the Sarno Road site which housed the School's allied health programs, e.g., medical assistant training, pharmacy technician associate degrees, medical insurance billing and coding, and healthcare administration. Besides the requirements set forth in the job description, the School was looking for someone with health- related experience as well. Terri Baker, a registered nurse, was ultimately hired to fill the associate dean position. Baker had approximately 20 years of experience with the School. During that time, Baker had taught classes in the allied health program, had served as a program director, and was an associate dean at other campuses within the CCI system. Baker does not hold a master's degree, but the job description issued by the School does not require that level of education. The job posting, which appeared in a publication issued by the School, does say that a master's degree is required, but there is no competent and substantial evidence to suggest the job posting supersedes the job description. Notwithstanding her level of schooling, it is clear Baker was a perfect fit for the job. The decision to appoint her, rather than Petitioner, to the position was based on factors other than race, national origin or religion. The second associate dean position was advertised in the Spring of 2010. The job description for that job is the same as the previous associate dean position. However, there are many different duties and expectations associated with the second position. For example, while the first position was related directly to the allied health programs at the School, the second position had a different focus. The person filling this position would be working on the main Melbourne campus, rather than the satellite campus. His or her duties would be directed toward tasks such as transfer of credit analysis, scheduling, and registering new students. The dean would also be responsible for monitoring the School's compliance with accreditation standards and internal audit standards. Betty Williams was hired to fill the second associate dean position. Williams had significant management experience in academic settings. She had served as an academic dean for one of the School's competitors and had extensive knowledge and experience with compliance accreditation standards. As compared to Petitioner, Williams was a much better fit for the position. Her experience would allow her to step into the position and begin working on problems immediately without the necessity of a period of training and acclimation. Director of Student Services Position The director of Student Services was expected to help students who were experiencing hardships in their academic progress. The director would help students who were forced to withdraw from school for financial or other personal reasons. He/she would provide support for students taking online classes and assist students trying to re-enroll into school following dismissal or withdrawal. A close working relationship with students was an important factor in this position. The School's job description listed the following requirement for the director of Student Services position: Bachelor's degree required Minimum of 3 years practical work experience or equivalent training Excellent communication and customer service skills Excellent computer skills The person who ultimately was hired for this position, Stacey Jacquot, was an outstanding employee at the School and had been selected as its Employee of the Year in two different positions. Jacquot is a Caucasian female; neither her religion, nor her place of natural origin was alluded to at final hearing. The hiring of Jacquot, as opposed to Petitioner, for this position was based on Jacquot's experience and background. She had worked in the student services department for the school as both an online coordinator and as a re-entry coordinator. Thus, her experience was directly related to the requirements of the position. Petitioner provided unsubstantiated testimony that by virtue of his teaching a number of classes over the past few years, he has some experience in counseling students concerning their issues. However, even if true, his experience did not match that of Jacquot. Request for Reimbursement for Doctoral Coursework Petitioner alleges retaliation by the School. The specific retaliatory action was the denial of his request to be reimbursed for coursework as he pursued a doctorate degree. In February 2010, Petitioner submitted a request to the School, asking that tuition expenses for his coursework be paid under the School's tuition reimbursement program. The program is set forth in policies maintained by the School and is available to "eligible employees for eligible classes." A benchmark for reimbursable tuition is that the courses being taken enable the employee to be more efficient in a current role or prepare them for a role at the next level of their employment. There are a number of written policies addressing the tuition reimbursement program. Those policies are fluid and have changed from time to time over the past few years. The policies are implemented and overseen by the director of Organizational Development for CCI, Jeanne Teeter. Teeter resides and works in California, corporate home of CCI. It is Teeter's duty to ultimately approve or deny all requests for tuition reimbursement by employees of all of CCI's colleges around the country. Teeter reviewed Petitioner's request for tuition reimbursement pursuant to a preliminary approval by the School's president, Mark Judge. It was Judge's initial decision to approve Petitioner's request, but Judge sent it to Teeter for a final decision. Teeter had never met Petitioner and did not know anything about him, except as found in his personnel file and his application for tuition reimbursement. Teeter, as was her normal procedure, considered the relevance of the degree being sought, not only to Petitioner's current role, but as to potential future roles as well. Because the course work for which reimbursement was being sought related to an advanced degree, a doctorate, Teeter was less inclined to approve it. Approval would necessitate a clear line of sight between the employee's current role to a role that would require a Ph.D. Inasmuch as Petitioner's role as senior network administrator did not require a doctorate and there was no clear line of sight between his present position and that of a professor or management employee requiring one, Teeter declined the request. At the time she made her decision, Teeter was not aware that Petitioner had made a discrimination claim against the School. Her decision, therefore, could not be retaliatory in nature. Rather, she acted in concert with the policies that address tuition reimbursement and made a decision based solely upon those policies. Petitioner appears to be an energetic and hard-working member of the School's staff. His testimony was credible, but was sometimes off the point. Although he is a well-educated person with three college degrees and is pursuing others, it is clear that English is his second language.1/ Petitioner seemed to be sincere in his belief that he was discriminated against, but did not provide persuasive evidence to support that claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Hisham Aboudaya in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 21st day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful employment practice based on sex.
Findings Of Fact Since November 2006, Petitioner, Michael J. Pappas, was a male employee of Respondent, Bay County School Board. Initially, he was employed as a part-time substitute teacher at Patronis Elementary School (Patronis). Patronis has an “A” ranking under Florida’s school accountability program and was ranked as a Top 100 School in 2005. Eventually, Petitioner became a full-time para-professional (aide) assigned to work exclusively with an autistic child enrolled at the school. Ellie Spivey (female), the principal at Patronis, recommended Petitioner for the full-time position. Petitioner was hired under an annual contract. In addition to his employment with Respondent, Petitioner served as Captain of a Dolphin tour boat he operated out of Panama City. In his para-professional position, Petitioner worked with Art Beakley (male) and Mary Martin (female). Both were third grade teachers at Patronis. Mr. Beakley was Petitioner’s direct supervisor and, like Petitioner, had been recommended for his teaching position by Ellie Spivey. Petitioner’s performance as a para-professional was mixed. At best, both teachers indicated Petitioner’s performance was adequate, when he was present at the school. Often Petitioner was absent from school or left school early to go on dolphin tours. Petitioner often did not notify either teacher that he would be absent. Petitioner told Mr. Beakley that he could make more money as a boat captain on the dolphin tours. On the days Petitioner was absent, the autistic student’s mother would act as his caretaker during the day. Eventually, both teachers complained to the principal about Petitioner’s absences from school. The principal did not discipline Petitioner because the absences were taken on allowable personal leave days. However, Petitioner’s clear preference for working the dolphin tours as opposed to working at the school did not reflect well on his dedication or enthusiasm for a career at the school. Brooke Loyed, an Assistant Principal at Patronis, evaluated Petitioner’s employment based on her observations of Petitioner. She was unaware of Mr. Beakley’s and Ms. Martin’s complaints regarding Petitioner’s absences. On April 3, 2007, Petitioner received a good evaluation with no problems noted. However, funding for Petitioner’s para-professional position was not available for the next school term. In mid-to- late April 2007, Petitioner was advised his contract would not be renewed. That same month, after learning of the non-renewal, Petitioner asked Mr. Beakley and Ms. Martin for a letter of recommendation. Mr. Beakley reluctantly agreed to give Petitioner a letter of recommendation and drafted a letter highlighting Petitioner’s good-qualities. The letter did not mention Petitioner’s absences and lack of enthusiasm. Initially, Ms. Martin refused to sign the letter by making excuses about why she had not signed the letter drafted by Mr. Beakley. However, she finally signed the letter so that Petitioner would stop asking her to do so. Ms. Martin now regrets that she signed the letter. In May 2007, Ms. Spivey was developing classes and personnel pairings for the next school term. She asked Kara Powell, a teacher at Patronis, if she was willing to work with a full-time para-professional in her classroom. Ms. Spivey did not indicate to Ms. Powell who the para-professional would be. Ms. Powell was not aware that Petitioner’s contract would not be renewed for the next term. Ms. Powell told Ms. Spivey that she would not be interested in working with a para-professional in her classroom if that person was Petitioner. Ms. Powell told Ms. Spivey that Petitioner made her uncomfortable because he would sit very close to her in the lunchroom and that he sometimes made comments she did not care for. She also told Ms. Spivey that Petitioner had once invited her and some other female teachers to go on a dolphin tour in their bathing suits without their husbands. Ms. Powell felt the invitation was inappropriate and made for sexual purposes. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner invited the teachers to go on a dolphin tour for inappropriate reasons. From Petitioner’s point of view, the invitation was made to a group of teachers sitting as a group in the cafeteria during a light-hearted conversation at the table. He invited his co-workers because he thought they might enjoy going on a dolphin tour. He limited the invitation to his co-workers because his boat was not big enough to take spouses or boyfriends. On the other hand, other teachers confirmed Ms. Powell’s story, and also indicated that Mr. Powell made them feel uncomfortable. Since the school year was through and Petitioner’s contract was not going to be renewed, Ms. Spivey did not investigate further and did not take any formal action against Petitioner regarding the reports of these teachers. Eventually, due to the lack of funds, Petitioner’s contract expired and was not renewed. There was no evidence that demonstrated the non-renewal of Petitioner’s contract was based on Petitioner’s gender. In the summer of 2007, Patronis had several open teaching positions. Respondent advertised the positions for 5 days. Eventually, the District Office developed an applicant list for Patronis and forwarded it to the school. There were over 90 applicants on the list, of which almost 95 percent were female. A minimum of five applicants was required to be interviewed by the school with the same questions and scoring form used for each candidate. In June and July 2007, interviews for the open teaching positions were held at Patronis. Ms. Spivey and Ms. Loyed selected Petitioner for an interview. Other candidates were Sarah Patterson, Jessica Kelley, Debra Holbrook, Kim Rogers, Sasha Aufschieider and Jana Jackins. Petitioner did not have a good interview and did not promote himself or his qualifications during the interview. He was not particularly enthusiastic or upbeat about teaching. Other than his application, Petitioner did not bring any letters of recommendation or updated resume to the interview. He did not provide the Bleakley letter discussed earlier. He did not discuss current teaching methods or techniques even though the interview questions provided him an opportunity to do so. Importantly, Petitioner did not appear to be current with those methods. From his application, it was clear that he had received his teaching degree over 20 years ago and had had no full-time classroom teaching experience since that time. Petitioner refused to be considered for a special education teaching position. The refusal did not reflect well on his dedication or enthusiasm for teaching. Petitioner also had no “English as a second language (ESOL)” experience or certification. ESOL certification is a desirable skill for teachers today. Because of the poor interview and given the recent allegations that he made other teachers uncomfortable, Petitioner was not offered any of the open positions at Patronis. The evidence did not demonstrate that the reasons for not hiring Petitioner were invalid or a pretext to mask discriminatory action. The successful applicants for the open positions at Patronis were Sarah Patterson, Jessica Kelley, Debra Holbrook, Kim Rogers, Sasha Aufschieider and Jana Jackins. All of the candidates hired for the open positions were female. However, that fact alone is not demonstrative of discrimination given the fact that the applicant pool was almost 95 percent female. The evidence demonstrated that all of these candidates were more qualified for the open teaching positions than Petitioner. All of the applicants had better interviews. All showed more enthusiasm and dedication to teaching. All demonstrated that they had knowledge of the latest teaching methods and techniques. Finally, all scored higher in the interview. Kim Rogers had three years of teaching experience at a Title I school. Her Title I experience was a good indication that she had experience in teaching at-risk children. Sarah Patterson had a year of classroom experience and ESOL certification. She also was known to be a very hard worker at school. Jessica Kelley and Debra Holbrook were new teachers who had recently completed their teaching internship at Patronis. Both were current in the latest teaching methods and techniques and had demonstrated such during the interview. Both were highly thought of by their teaching peers. Sasha Aufschieider was ESOL-certified. She also was highly recommended by her peers. Likewise, Jana Jackins was highly recommended by her teaching peers. When Petitioner discovered that he would not be offered a position, he complained to Dr. Richardson at the District Office. At the time, he did not indicate that he thought he had been discriminated against based on his sex. Instead, he indicated that he thought he had been promised a position. Dr. Richardson determined that the District hiring policies had been followed. She offered to help Petitioner and contacted the principals at Cedar Grove Elementary School, a Title I school, and Surfside Middle School. On July 19, 2007, Petitioner interviewed at Cedar Grove Elementary for a position involving remediation of students who failed the FCAT. The school and the position required an enthusiastic and motivated person who could work with high-risk, failing students. The interview was conducted by the principal, Billy May (male). Petitioner performed adequately in his interview with Mr. May. Petitioner was not selected for the position. The successful candidate, Heather Six (female), was more qualified for the position. She scored higher and had ESOL certification. Indeed, there was no evidence that demonstrated Petitioner was discriminated against based on his sex when he was not hired for the Cedar Grove position. Similarly, Petitioner was not hired for the position at Surfside Middle School. The interview was conducted by the principal, Sue Harrell (female). Petitioner again did adequately in the interview. The successful candidate for the position was Kenneth Stem (male). As with Cedar Grove, there was no evidence of discrimination or pretext in the hiring of Mr. Stem over Petitioner and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 8th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Pappas 6208 North Lagoon Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 Robert C. Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 33402-1579
Findings Of Fact The parties. Petitioner, Frank Petruzielo, is the Superintendent of Schools, Broward County, Florida. Petitioner is obligated by law to recommend the placement of school personnel, require compliance and observance by all personnel with all law and rules, and report any violation thereof, with appropriate disciplinary action, against any school personnel failing to comply therewith to the School Board of Broward County, Florida. Respondent, Josue Narvaez, was at all times material hereto an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, holding a professional services contract as a teacher, and was employed as the Foreign Student Advisor at Atlantic Vocational Technical Center. The charges. By administrative complaint dated March 8, 1995, petitioner has charged respondent with "immorality," "misconduct in office," and "gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties," based on his contention that respondent charged students a fee to translate foreign diplomas and certificates which he was required to translate and evaluate as part of his job duties, accepted monies for such services during school hours and on school property, and had such documents notarized by School Board employees during school hours; and, that respondent submitted false claims for medical reimbursement to the administrator of the School Board's medical reimbursement account. Respondent, although admitting that he charged students a fee for translating documents, has denied that such activity was improper, and further denied that he submitted false claims for medical reimbursement. The proof relating to the charge that respondent charged for translation services. Atlantic Vocational Technical Center is an educational unit of the Broward County School Board which provides educational opportunities for residents of Broward County. Among those residents is a large population of foreign speaking students including, inter alia, students of Haitian and South American origin. In the case of Haitian students, their predominate language is Creole, and their previous educational experiences are generally reflected in documentation written in the French language. On the other hand, the students of South American origin are generally speakers of Spanish, and their previous educational experiences are generally reflected in documentation written in the Spanish language. To properly place this population of foreign speaking students in the school's vocational programs, it is necessary to provide a language assessment, as well as an assessment of the documentation reflecting their previous educational experiences, to assure that each student has the basic credentials or prerequisites for any particular vocational program. Respondent, who is fluent in English, French, and Spanish, and conversational in Creole, was initially engaged part-time and ultimately full-time as the school's foreign student advisor and, as such, functioned as the "point person" for any foreign student entering the school. As the foreign student advisor, it was respondent's obligation to counsel and intake such students, provide needed language assessments, and to review or evaluate the documentation they possessed reflecting their previous educational experiences to validate their level of attainment, and to provide the school with a written evaluation or statement of educational credentials certifying the student's level of academic education, i.e., that the student had "attained a level of academic education which is at least equal to that of high school completion in the United States System of education." 1/ Given respondent's fluency in French and Spanish, coupled with his job related responsibility to validate, as necessary, a foreign student's prior level of academic achievement, it was reasonable for the school to expect that respondent would utilize his language skills to provide the needed evaluation without the need to resort to a written translation of the student's documentation reflecting previous educational experience. Indeed, written translations of such documents, where the school had on staff employees fluent in the student's language, was not a requirement for evaluation or entry into the school's programs. Notwithstanding the expectations of his employment, respondent routinely advised students who sought such an evaluation and validation that he would not provide the service absent a written translation of their foreign certificates, diplomas or other documentation into the English language. According to respondent, he advised the students that he could, for a fee, provide the translation service or they could use the services of an outside translator. Where he provided the service, respondent routinely did the translations at his home during his off-duty hours, but had the written translation notarized by one of the registrars at the school during the school day, and delivered the documents to the student at the school during the school day. For such services, respondent generally charged from $20.00 to $50.00, depending on the number of documents that were translated. That respondent was charging for such services was apparently reported by various students to Marie Marseille, a teacher assistant in the SAIL (System of Applied Individualized Learning) program, who in turn reported such statements to Lynne Husted, the department head for the SAIL program at the school. Ms. Husted was apparently of the opinion that she "could do nothing unless a student would come to [her] directly," and took no action until late September 1994 following a conversation with a former student, Baron Pyram. In September 1994, Baron Pyram, a former student, approached Que Nghiem at the school to seek assistance in securing a written translation of a diploma he had received in auto mechanics while a resident in Haiti. According to Baron, he needed the translation by the next day so he could seek employment. Mr. Nghiem, a teacher, referred Baron to the respondent. Ms. Husted, hearing of the referral, told Baron to follow Mr. Nghiem's direction but if respondent requested a fee for the service to return to her and she would see that it was translated for free. Baron did request that respondent translate his diploma, but notwithstanding Ms. Husted's advice, agreed to pay respondent a fee of $25.00 and gave respondent an $8.00 deposit. The following day, Baron picked up the translation from respondent at the school, duly notarized by one of the registrars, and paid respondent the balance owed. Following the transaction, Mr. Crawford, the school principal, met with respondent in respondent's office and asked him about the transaction. Respondent freely admitted he had done the translation for Baron for $25.00, and refused, despite Mr. Crawford's request, to return the $25.00 to Baron. Given the circumstances, it was respondent's opinion that there was no impropriety in his accepting a fee from Baron for such service. With regard to the Baron Pyram transaction, the proof fails to demonstrate any impropriety in respondent's acceptance of a fee for his translation services. Baron was not a student at the time, Baron specifically requested the translation, the translation was unrelated to respondent's job duties as a foreign student advisor, and the translation itself was done at respondent's home and not during school hours. That respondent accepted the fee for the service on school property has not been shown to be improper, and his use of a school registrar to notarize his translation has likewise not been shown to be improper. 2/ Indeed, respondent's testimony that the registrar's notarization of documents for school employees was a routine courtesy is accepted, and the provision of such courtesy was not shown to have been time- consuming or disruptive of the registrar's regular duties. Notwithstanding the lack of impropriety in the Baron Pyram matter, the proof does support the conclusion that respondent's refusal to evaluate and validate the prior level of academic achievement of foreign students, absent a written translation into English, was contrary to his job duties as foreign student advisor. The proof further supports the conclusion that his advice to foreign students that such translations were required for an evaluation was false and deceptive, and that the use of such deception was instrumental in his attracting fees for translation services that were otherwise not required by the school or for an evaluation of their educational status. The proof relating to the charge that respondent submitted forged/fraudulent claims for medical reimbursement. Incident to his employment with the School Board, respondent was accorded the opportunity to participate in the School Board's reimbursement account. Such account is a voluntary program where employees may allocate pretax dollars under the Internal Revenue Service Code for medical expenses, and from which they may seek reimbursement for medical expenses that are not covered by insurance and thereby save tax dollars. For the 1993 tax year, respondent elected to participate in the program at a rate of $100.00 each month for a total of $1,200.00 annually. Notably, under the program, as regulated under the Internal Revenue Service Code, respondent's entire $1,200.00 annual commitment, although sheltered at $100.00 each month, is available on January 1st of the tax year to pay nonreimbursed medical expenses. The School Board, as respondent's employer, essentially funds the account as of January 1st of the tax year, and recovers the monies over the course of the year by monthly salary redirection, provided respondent continues to be employed. On or about January 7, 1993, respondent submitted to First Benefits, Inc., the administrator of the School Board's medical reimbursement account, a claim for $1,165.00 for eye care services respondent claimed were rendered by Dr. Jerry Siegel. Attached to the claim were two statements, one reflecting a date of service of January 4, 1993, for respondent at a total charge of $595.00, and a second reflecting a date of service of January 6, 1993, for respondent's daughter at a total charge of $570.00. Notably, at $1,165.00, the claim respondent submitted in January was only $35.00 short of his annual participation and, if accepted for payment, would have required the School Board to effectively pay respondent the amount of the claim, with the expectation that such sums would be recovered over the course of the year from respondent's monthly salary reduction. On January 25, 1993, First Benefits, Inc., denied respondent's claim for reimbursement predicated on advice from Dr. Siegel that "the services in question were not rendered on the dates enclosed." At hearing, the proof demonstrated that the statements for services to respondent and his daughter for January 4, 1993, and January 6, 1993, were fabrications, and that Dr. Siegel had rendered no such services to respondent or his daughter. Accordingly, the proof supports the conclusion, as alleged by petitioner, that "[r]espondent submitted forged/fraudulent claims for medical reimbursement to the administrator of the School Board's medical reimbursement account."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered sustaining respondent's suspension, and terminating his employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 11th day of September 1995.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on May 28, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the COE was charged with the duty of investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold a Florida educational certificate and who are alleged to have violated Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Mr. Magid held Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 936553, covering the area of Elementary Education, which is valid through June 30, 2012. During the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years, Mr. Magid was employed as a kindergarten teacher with the Palm Beach County School Board (School Board) at Westwood Elementary School (Westwood). In January 2008, Mr. Magid arranged to obtain a tripod from another teacher, Janae Dean, at Westwood. On January 9, 2008, Mr. Magid contacted Ms. Dean, who was in a meeting in a classroom other than her own, to obtain the keys to her classroom in order to get the tripod from her locked classroom. Ms. Dean kept her classroom locked when she was not in the classroom. Ms. Dean gave Mr. Magid the keys to her classroom. Later, Mr. Magid returned to the classroom where the meeting was being held and returned Ms. Dean’s keys to her. After the meeting, Ms. Dean returned to her classroom and discovered that a $100 bill was missing from her purse, which was locked inside a file cabinet in her classroom. Ms. Dean called another teacher, Josette Archbold,1 a media specialist, to her (Ms. Dean’s) classroom. Ms. Dean requested Ms. Archbold to look into her (Ms. Dean’s) purse and determine if a $100 bill was in the purse; Ms. Archbold verified that no $100 bill was in Ms. Dean’s purse. Ms. Dean went to confront Mr. Magid. She discovered that he had left the Westwood’s campus and was working as a referee at a high school basketball game. She went to the basketball game and confronted Mr. Magid, who admitted to taking the money, but told her that it was a practical joke. Ms. Dean informed him that she wanted her money, and Mr. Magid wrote her a check for $100. Ms. Dean did not wish to file a criminal complaint against Mr. Magid. However, she did report the incident to the Westwood’s principal, Melvis Pender, that same evening. The following day, Mr. Pender met with Mr. Magid and Ms. Dean. Mr. Magid admitted taking the $100 bill from Ms. Dean’s purse that was secured in the locked cabinet in her classroom. However, he (Mr. Magid) indicated that it was a practical joke, which was refuted by Ms. Dean. Mr. Pender determined that the incident was not a practical joke. Mr. Pender issued a directive to Mr. Magid, characterizing Mr. Magid’s behavior as “unprofessional and inappropriate,” and directing Mr. Magid to discontinue the type of behavior in which Mr. Magid had engaged. Mr. Magid executed an acknowledgement of the directive on January 24, 2008. On March 14, 2008, Ms. Archbold was reporting to work at Westwood. As she entered the area where the circulation desk was located, which was outside of her office, a colleague approached her and immediately needed some paperwork on an audit, which the two of them were preparing. Ms. Archbold placed her wallet and other material on the circulation desk and entered her office to retrieve the paperwork that her colleague requested. Considerable time had elapsed, and Ms. Archbold noticed Mr. Magid going in and out of the media office; then she realized that she had left her wallet outside of her office on the circulation desk. Ms. Archbold had $20 in her wallet. The day before, March 13, 2008, she had gone to the bank to borrow money because her refrigerator had stopped working and food in the refrigerator had spoiled. She borrowed money from the bank to purchase another refrigerator and replace groceries that had spoiled; and, after doing that, she had only $20 remaining. Ms. Archbold went to the circulation desk and opened her wallet. The $20 was missing. Ms. Archbold’s colleague went to Mr. Magid and confronted him about the missing $20. He admitted to taking the $20 and gave Ms. Archbold’s colleague $20 to give to Ms. Archbold. Prior to the incident on March 14, 2008, Ms. Archbold had encountered other thefts involving Mr. Magid. On one occasion, he stole $100 from money being raised at a book fair at Westwood. Ms. Archbold was responsible for the money, so she replaced the $100 from her personal funds, instead of confronting Mr. Magid. None of these thefts were reported to Mr. Pender and, therefore, were not the subject of any disciplinary action. Mr. Pender was notified of theft of the $20 and went to his office. When Mr. Pender entered his office, he found Mr. Magid “cowering” behind his (Mr. Pender’s) desk. Mr. Magid admitted to Mr. Pender that he took the $20. Mr. Magid also indicated to Mr. Pender that he (Mr. Magid) was seeing a therapist for his behavior. Mr. Pender reported the theft to the Palm Beach County School District Police for investigation. Mr. Magid was placed on alternative assignment during the investigation. Before any formal action was taken by the School Board, regarding the thefts, Mr. Pender notified Mr. Magid by letter dated March 24, 2008, that he (Mr. Pender) was not recommending Mr. Magid for reappointment for the 2009-2010 school year; and that, therefore, as a non-reappointed employee, he (Mr. Magid) would be terminated from employment with the School Board at the end of his (Mr. Magid’s) contractual period Even though Mr. Pender had rated Mr. Magid as satisfactorily performing his duties as a classroom teacher, Mr. Pender had reached the conclusion that Mr. Magid had become untrustworthy and no longer wanted him (Mr. Magid) to work at Westwood. As a result, Mr. Pender recommended non-reappointment of Mr. Magid. Instead of being faced with termination proceedings, Mr. Magid resigned from employment with the School Board. Mr. Pender believes that, if Mr. Magid can successfully control his behavior, i.e., successfully control whatever is causing him (Mr. Magid) to steal money, he (Mr. Magid) could be a capable, competent teacher. Mr. Magid admits that the conduct in which he engaged was inappropriate and “very stupid.” Mr. Magid suffers from dyslexia and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). He contends that dyslexia and ADD have caused him throughout his life to make poor decisions in the taking of things and the situations involving the taking of money in this instant matter. No medical evidence was presented to show that dyslexia and ADD cause one, and specifically Mr. Magid, who suffers from the medical conditions to engage in the conduct in which Mr. Magid has engaged. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Magid’s dyslexia and ADD caused him to engage in the conduct in which he engaged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Bradley Joseph Magid violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2007), and violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(4)(c) and 6B-1.006(5)(a). Imposing a penalty of revocation of Mr. Magid’s certificate for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 1st day of March, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. In accordance with the Order of Pre-hearing Instruction entered in this cause the parties submitted a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Included in that document were the following stipulations of fact: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 798852, covering the area of Athletic Coaching, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in this case, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Atlantic High School in the Volusia County School District. C. W. was a sixteen-year-old female student at Atlantic High School. On or about December 2, 2008, while C. W. was in another teacher’s geometry class, Respondent sat next to C. W. at a table toward the rear of the class. Respondent initiated an exchange of notes (sic) between himself and C. W. The note stated: Respondent: What’s your boyfriends name? Student: Don’t have one why? Respondent: I don’t believe that!! Student: Why not???? Respondent: Because you look like you should have one! Student: Why do I need one LOL no guys are attractive here . . . why do I look like I should have one? Respondent: I never said you needed one!! You just have that look and I can’t say why. Student: ooo so there’s a look that people have when they have a b/f or g/f. Why can’t you say why? Respondent: You are too sexy not to have a ton of guys chasing after you and one of the (sic) should have caught you. If I was in high school I would most definitely be one of them. Student: haha well its not like that at all. They are all UGLY Respondent: So what are you looking for? A super model? The above-referenced note between Respondent and C. W. was inappropriate. C. W. put the note away and did not respond to Respondent’s last inquiry. Respondent attempted to retrieve the note from C. W. C. W. kept the note and turned it in to school administration and reported the Respondent’s conduct. As a result of the foregoing exchange, the student, C. W., was very uncomfortable. She began to think that Respondent had been "coming on" to her. Although Respondent denied that assumption, he acknowledges that the exchange was inappropriate and in poor judgment. Further he acknowledged that the exchange had left C. W. uncomfortable. At no time has Respondent ever denied that the exchange took place and he has not attempted to avoid punishment for the incident. After the exchange and becoming aware of C. W.'s unease, Respondent made every effort to avoid C. W. so that neither would be uncomfortable. To that end the school administration moved Respondent from the classroom where C. W. was assigned, to another classroom. Respondent was disciplined by the school district and remained at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the school year. C. W.'s mother believes Respondent should have been removed from the school. When he was not, ultimately C. W. transferred to another school to complete her senior year. C. W. believes that she was treated unfavorably by students who endorsed Respondent and did not support her decision to report the note-writing incident. Respondent was previously disciplined by another school district for whom he worked. The prior disciplinary event also led to action by the Education Practices Commission. The prior act was dissimilar in facts to the instant case. Respondent is a well-educated and experienced teacher. He holds bachelor and master degrees. Respondent became a teacher in 1998 and has been continuously employed by various school districts since that time. Additionally, he taught at a detention center for youthful offenders for approximately one year. In short, Respondent should have known better than to engage in note writing with C. W., and should not have initiated the note. In addition to distracting C. W. during a class when she should have been allowed to engage in learning, Respondent's conduct in continuing the note writing was immature and contrary to meaningful teaching practices. Respondent has always achieved acceptable performance evaluations. Despite the unrelated lapses in judgment resulting in disciplinary actions, Respondent has continued in employment with the school district. At no time has Respondent ever attempted to touch C. W. inappropriately. At no time did Respondent actually verbally speak to C. W. The entire inappropriate exchange consisted of note writing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a panel of the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the standards of conduct applicable to educators in Florida, found in Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), and 6B-1.006(3)(e), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and requiring a period of probation not less than one year under the terms and conditions deemed most appropriate by the panel. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th 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 28th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA/United 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marion Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practice Service Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was first employed by the Liberty County School Board as a classroom teacher for the school terms 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 as an English classroom teacher. For the school year 1974-75, the Petitioner was employed for a fourth year as a teacher by Respondent. In November of 1974, the Petitioner requested and was granted maternity leave through the end of the school year, i.e., June 6, 1975. It is undisputed that during the first three school years of the Petitioner's employment with Respondent, her employment was pursuant to an annual contract. However, what is in dispute, is Petitioner's claim that during her fourth year of employment with Respondent, such employment was pursuant to a continuing contract. According to Petitioner, the then principal at the school in which she was employed recommended that she be reappointed for her forth year of employment pursuant to a continuing contract as did the then superintendent of schools, Tom Fairchild. Thereafter, on May 4, 1974, the School Board met and voted favorably on the Superintendent' s recommendation. In this regard, the minutes of the May 4, 1974, meeting of the school Board do not disclose the contractual status approved by the Board, i.e., annual or continuing. 1/ During the summer of 1975, Petitioner advised her principal that she would not be returning for the 1975-76 school year. Accordingly, the principal employed another teacher to replace her. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner informed the principal that she had changed her mind and wanted to teach the 1975-76 school year. She was not, however, rehired, as the position had been filled. During the summer months of 1975, Petitioner had several conversations with her then principal, Jerry Johnson. Initially, during her conversations with Principal Johnson, Petitioner related to him that she thought that she would be returning to her position for the 1975-76 school year. During the latter part of July, Principal Johnson explained to Petitioner the necessity for her to make a final decision with respect to her returning to her position, since he needed to hire a replacement if she was not returning. At that point, Petitioner remarked that, "I think I need to take another year's leave." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, we hate that you are not coming back, but if you feel that's best for the baby, I'm supportive of you." Within a few days, Petitioner called Mr. Johnson back and advised, "just pretend I didn't talk to you the other day. I want my job back." At that point, Mr. Johnson remarked, "Vicki, I wish you had told me. I have just hired somebody else." To this, Petitioner remarked, "Well, what do you mean you just hired so00body else. I am on a continuing contract, you know." Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, I know, but you've got me in an awkward position. This boy has got Board connections." Petitioner remarked, "Well, it couldn't have been more than a verbal agreement. He couldn't have signed anything yet because you don't sign a contract this early in the year." 2/ Mr. Johnson remarked, "Well, that's true but everybody is going to be awfully upset. I can't tell him he doesn't have a job now, and I've told him he has one." Later, Mr. Johnson asked Petitioner to submit a letter of resignation to which Petitioner never responded. Prior to the beginning of the school year in either late August or early September of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner visited the principal's office in Bristol and explained to him that while she did not want to force the issue, via a lawsuit in a small community, she would appreciate it if she was given the first teaching position that cane open in the school system. (TR 23, 24 and 25.) The Petitioner testified that she was ready, willing and able to work during the 1975-76 school year. Petitioner received a call from Mr. Johnson during October of 1975 wherein he inquired if she was ready to return to work. Petitioner responded that she was ready and had been since the summer. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had a teaching position opening up; however, that position never materialized inasmuch as the teacher who was supposed to have resigned, Carolyn Larkins, needed an additional year of employment for retirement purposes. Petitioner was not assigned to a position at any time during the 1975-76 school year. Toward the end of the 1975-76 school year, Petitioner again informed her principal of her continuing request to be assigned. When no assignment was given her at the beginning of the 1975-76 school year, the Petitioner, out of economic necessity, accompanied her husband to Maine where he had obtained employment. Petitioner made it plain to her principal that she still sought employment with the Board and would return to Florida if and when an assignment was offered her. Finally, in November, 1976, approximately two months after the Petitioner left Florida, her principal assigned her to a teaching position and she returned and resumed teaching in the school system. Petitioner was given an annual contract for the 1976-77 school year and inquired why she was being asked to sign an annual contract. Her principal advised her that it was "customary" to do so. The Petitioner remained on the assignment the remainder of the 1976-77 school year. At the end of the 1976-77 school year, the present Superintendent of Schools, Laquita Shuler, recommended and the Respondent School Board approved, the Petitioner's continued employment. The Petitioner taught the entire 1977-78 school year. During the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was again tendered an annual contract for execution which she refused to sign. Petitioner, before the School Board meeting in December, 1977, contended that she had a continuing contract and the Board took no action on her contention. At the end of the 1977-78 school year, Petitioner was not recommended for continued employment by the Superintendent. This was so, despite the favorable recommendation of her principal. Petitioner, at all times subsequent to the end of the 1977-78 school year, has been refused further employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner has made efforts to obtain employment during the interim; however, her interim earnings have been minimal. Since her separation from the Liberty County School Board, the Petitioner has been ready, willing and able to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, School Board of Liberty County, make the Petitioner whole for wages including her loss of pay during the 1975-76 school year, her pay from the start of the 1976-77 school year through November 16, 1976, when she was reassigned to her teaching position, her pay from the start of the 1978- 79 school year through the date of her reinstatement, as well as the expenses incurred by the Petitioner as a direct and approximate result of the Respondent's actions. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
