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 Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Christopher O'Brien and suspend him for five days without pay. Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Angelo DiPaolo and suspend him for three days without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Christopher O'Brien was employed by Petitioner Hernando County School Board as a school bus driver. Mr. O'Brien was first hired by Petitioner as a school bus driver in 2001. Prior to the events of this case, he had never been disciplined by his employer, and he had received a number of commendations. At all times material, Angelo DiPaolo was employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant. Mr. DiPaolo was first employed and trained by Petitioner as a school bus driver for about one year, but he had been employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant for the last six years preceding the incident in this case. Respondents are members of the Hernando United School Workers Union (HUSW). For the 2007-2008, school year, both men were assigned by the School Board's Transportation Department to Bus 473, Route 22. During that school year, the bus carried between 50 and 60 children, ages kindergarten through eighth grade, to and from J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Student A.R. was one of these students. On October 5, 2007, A.R. was a three-year-old, female, pre-kindergarten, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student. She was a special needs child, whose 2007-2008, Individualized Education Plan (IEP) called for her to have adult supervision while riding the bus. The School Board had implemented A.R.'s IEP for the 2007-2008, school year by placing Mr. DiPaolo on Mr. O'Brien's bus. Steve Daniels, Petitioner's ESE Driver Coordinator Specialist, provided Mr. DiPaolo with written confirmation of his assignment, which included information on A.R.'s grade level, bus stop, and need for a special seat restraint. Mr. DiPaolo first met A.R. at the beginning of the 2007-2008, school year. Mr. DiPaolo's assigned first and primary responsibility was the safety of A.R., which included buckling her into her child safety seat, but his second and subordinate responsibility was to maintain order on the bus and manage the safety of the other 50-60 children. Mr. O'Brien had met A.R. during the second semester of the 2006-2007, school year, when she was initially placed on his school bus route. During that school year, A.R. had ridden the bus driven by Mr. O'Brien without having a school bus attendant specifically devoted to her safety and exceptionalities. During that school year, Mr. O'Brien had been instrumental in getting a particular type of safety seat for A.R. to ride in, due to her small size. This type of seat is called "a C. E. White" or "CEW" child's safety seat, and has an integrated five-point harness. During the 2006-2007, school year, Mr. O'Brien's bus had no bus attendant. Therefore, during that period of time, he had ultimate responsibility for all the children on his bus, including A.R. During the 2006-2007, school year, A.R. was sometimes buckled into her bus safety seat by older siblings who rode the same bus, but Mr. O'Brien had a good rapport with A.R. and often also helped buckle her into her seat. To do so, he had to leave the bus driver's compartment of the bus. During the 2007-2008, school year, A.R. and one sister, R.R., who was then approximately nine years old, continued to ride Mr. O'Brien's bus. Mr. O'Brien was advised at the start of the 2007-2008, school year that A.R. would be riding with the adult supervision of Mr. DiPaolo. Mr. O'Brien was not made privy to the reasons why the decision had been made to require a bus attendant specifically for A.R., but he understood he was supposed to comply with this requirement, regardless of the reason. There also was testimony that any three-year-old attending kindergarten with a special bus attendant would be an ESE student. In assessing the relative credibility and weighing the testimony of all the witnesses, as well as hearing the comments made by R.R. on the videotape of the October 5, 2007, incident, it is found that A.R. was not a usually compliant and accepting bus passenger, but was frequently what any parent would recognize as difficult or oppositional. (See Finding of Fact 23.) Indeed, during the 2007-2008, school year prior to October 5, 2007, Mr. DiPaolo had twice sought direction from Mr. Daniels, who had told him to do the best he could with A.R., but if Mr. DiPaolo's "best" did not work out, something else might have to be done about A.R. A.R.'s father usually brought her to the bus stop. On the morning of October 5, 2007, a neighbor brought the two siblings to the bus stop. A.R. was already upset when boarding began. On October 5, 2007, A.R. did not want to get on the bus. Mr. DiPaolo had to go down to the first step of the bus to get A.R. from the neighbor who was supervising the sisters at the bus stop. Once A.R. made it to the top step of the bus entrance, she still did not want to move. Mr. DiPaolo had to lift her up and place her in her C.E. White seat, which was strapped-into the window-side of the first row seat, immediately inside the door on the side of the bus opposite the driver's side. Once there, A.R. deliberately slumped off the car seat onto the floor of the bus. When lifted up again, A.R. repeated the behavior. This "battle of wills" between the three-year-old and the bus attendant continued for a little while. Fairly quickly, however, Mr. DiPaolo retired from the field of battle to speak to some students in the back of the bus. At this point, A.R. was either sliding herself onto the floor or was on the floor between the first row of seats and the stairwell barricade. Despite some testimony to the effect that the older students in the back of the bus were rowdy and needed to be settled down, the video tape does not corroborate that "take" on the chain of events. While it might have been good strategy for Mr. DiPaolo to let A.R. cool off a little before again trying to buckle her into her seat, there does not appear to have been any pressing reason for Mr. DiPaolo to absent himself from her vicinity to address issues in the back of the bus. Moreover, A.R. was his first and prime responsibility, and he abandoned that responsibility by saying to A.R.'s sister, R.R., who was still standing and not in her own seat, that she should try to get A.R. buckled in, and he did not alert Mr. O'Brien that A.R. was not yet buckled-in. Mr. DiPaolo's superior, Mr. Daniels, would have sanctioned Mr. DiPaolo's enlisting the aid of the older sibling if Mr. DiPaolo also had not simply abandoned the situation and walked to the back of the bus. Mr. DiPaolo also could have, and did not, attempt to enlist the aid of the adult neighbor who had delivered A.R. to the bus stop, or he could have returned A.R. back to that adult neighbor and suggested the neighbor take A.R. to school separately, both of which were options his superiors testified they would have sanctioned. He could also have requested that Mr. O'Brien radio the dispatcher for help. He chose none of these options. As Mr. DiPaolo gave instructions to A.R.'s sister and walked to the back of the bus, Mr. O'Brien, not realizing that A.R. was not secured into her seat, pulled the bus away from the stop. Although Mr. O'Brien testified to several reasons that he believed A.R. was secured in her seat before he pulled the bus away from its stop, Mr. DiPaolo clearly had not orally advised him that she was buckled-in, and Mr. O'Brien did not, in fact, make sure that A.R. was secure before he pulled the bus into four-lane traffic. Moreover, the sister, R.R., was up and down while all this was going on. She was not always in her seat as the bus was moving, either. R.R. was not able to secure A.R. in her seat, so she approached the driver's compartment and stated to Mr. O'Brien that they were going to have to do things "the hard way." R.R.'s choice of words suggests that R.R. and Mr. O'Brien had previously had to buckle A.R. into her car seat by sheer force. Approximately 25 seconds after he started the bus, during which time the bus entered the flow of four lanes of traffic and proceeded through an intersection, Mr. O'Brien pulled the bus over to the side of the road and stopped. During the whole of this period, A.R. was not in her seat or buckled- in. When Mr. O'Brien pulled over, he put on the emergency brake and put the transmission in neutral. He intentionally left the bus engine running, because the doors on that type of bus are controlled by air pressure. Once the engine is turned off, the doors will open with just the touch of a hand from either inside or outside the door. For safety reasons, he wanted the door to remain secure. Under the circumstances, pulling over the bus was probably a wise move, but Mr. O'Brien went further. He could have summoned Mr. DiPaolo to come back and do his job as A.R.'s bus attendant, and he could have called dispatch to alert the administration to a problem requiring their help, but instead, Mr. O'Brien left the driver's compartment to check on A.R. When Mr. O'Brien reached her, A.R. was not in her seat. He lifted her up from the floor of the bus and attempted to buckle her into her seat. At first, Mr. O'Brien was not successful getting A.R. into her seat and asked her if she knew she was about to get "a spanking." Mr. O'Brien admitted to threatening to spank A.R. to "snap her out of it," and to emphasize the importance of complying with his demands, even though he knew that "corporal punishment" was against Petitioner's policies. His voice was firm in making the statement and more matter-of-fact than threatening. However, his threat was loud enough to be heard over the general commotion on the bus, the idling engine, and the sound of traffic. R.R. and at least a few nearby children must have heard the threat. When A.R. continued to physically resist Mr. O'Brien's efforts to get her into her seat, he administered a single, swift slap to her right buttocks/thigh area. A.R. did not cry out specifically at that point, although later she began to cry. After spanking A.R., Mr. O'Brien was able, unassisted, to wrestle her into her seat and buckle her in. At some point in Mr. O'Brien's struggle, Mr. DiPaolo returned and stood in the aisle, level with the back of A.R.'s seat, observing Mr. O'Brien interacting with A.R. and A.R. crying. The "driver's compartment" on Mr. O'Brien's bus does not show up well in the video and there was no testimony concerning how it is configured. However, it does not appear to be separated from the students' seats by a door or partition. The diagrams in the Operations Handbook show clear access to the driver's seat and controls from the student seats on the driver's side immediately behind the driver's seat, if the driver is not in his seat, regardless of whether anyone is blocking the aisle. During the entire period of time Mr. O'Brien was dealing with A.R., he had his back turned towards the driver's seat and controls, which he had left unattended. During this entire period of time, the bus engine continued running and the doors remained closed. However, Mr. O'Brien's bus has just a knob for an emergency brake and anyone could have hit the knob so that the bus would begin rolling forward. After securing A.R. and being sure R.R. also was safely seated, Mr. O'Brien returned to the driver's compartment and drove the bus to school. A.R.'s screaming, crying, and fussing seems to have escalated after Mr. O'Brien resumed the driver's seat, when Mr. DiPaolo said something to A.R. about his not being willing to sit with her. However, Mr. DiPaolo eventually sat next to A.R. and interacted with A.R. to keep her amused, and apparently happy, until the bus stopped again and the passengers debarked at J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Mr. O'Brien described the incident to A.R.'s classroom teacher when he delivered A.R. into her care at the school on October 5, 2007. He did not report it to Petitioner's Transportation Department, because it was, in his mind, a minor bit of misbehavior by a student. Mr. DiPaolo also made no report. The undersigned is not persuaded that either Mr. O'Brien or Mr. DiPaolo tried to keep the incident secret. One of Petitioner's own training manuals provides: Minor incidents of misbehavior such as getting out of the seat, standing, or speaking loudly are usually better handled on the bus. If every incident of misbehavior is reported to the principal, the operator will lose credibility. However, on the following Monday morning, A.R.'s mother boarded Mr. O'Brien's bus and made a scene, accusing Mr. O'Brien of spanking A.R. on her bottom. The mother then proceeded to Petitioner's administrative offices, where she lodged a complaint, and finally went on to the Sheriff's Office to do the same. Ultimately, because they are required to do so when there is an accusation of corporal punishment, Petitioner's administration notified the Department of Children and Family Services of the mother's allegations. After receiving the complaint, Linda Smith, Petitioner's Director of Transportation, requested a copy of the October 5, 2007, surveillance video from the front of Bus 473. That surveillance film was admitted in evidence and has been heavily relied-upon in this Recommended Order. The surveillance film from the back of the bus was not offered or admitted. Ms. Smith, and Ms. Rucell Nesmith, Petitioner's Operator Trainer/Safety Coordinator for Transportation, have each been involved in school bus transportation for over 30 years and both have served as drivers and as transportation administrators. They testified that Mr. O'Brien's conduct on October 5, 2007, violated Petitioner's policy on two basic levels: he left the driver's compartment while the bus was still running and still loaded with students, and he administered corporal punishment to a student. While bus attendants and drivers have some discretion in handling disruptive students or students like A.R., who are not following directions, they are not supposed to permit, or cause, a bus to leave a stop until every student is properly secured, and they are forbidden to use corporal punishment. Bus drivers/operators receive training, including training on Petitioner's Operations Handbook as well as training on the State-approved driver curriculum. Mr. O'Brien was certified as having completed the bus driver training on July 20, 2001. Mr. O'Brien attended annual in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In-service trainings include, among other things, any updates to the Operations Handbook. General statements were also made during in-service trainings about not touching students. Mr. DiPaolo received his initial training as a bus driver from Ms. Nesmith and a copy of the Operations Handbook in 2001, when he first was hired by Petitioner. Mr. DiPaolo, and all bus attendants, receive initial training as bus attendants, including a review of Petitioner's Operations Handbook. Mr. DiPaolo also received in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In-service training included any updates to the Operations Handbook. Ms. Smith recommended discipline for Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo. She recommended a five-day suspension for Mr. O'Brien and a three-day suspension for Mr. DiPaolo. Petitioner scheduled a pre-disciplinary meeting concerning the incident for October 17, 2007. The meeting was postponed because Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo had obtained legal counsel. The meeting was eventually rescheduled for November 2007. Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo attended that meeting with their respective legal counsel, and it resulted in the November 7, 2007, charges addressed below and in the Conclusions of Law. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, Petitioner's Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. O'Brien, reprimanding him and issuing a five-day suspension without pay for leaving the driver's compartment; leaving the bus running while attending to A.R.; orally threatening to spank a student while attempting to put her into her seat; swatting the student on her posterior; and failing to immediately report to the Transportation Department the incident as a student safety issue. Mr. O'Brien was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (10)- On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board; Policy 6.301, Ethics: Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety; and (3) (e) not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and provisions in Petitioner's 2007 Staff Handbook prohibiting touching students except to protect their health, safety and/or welfare. Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, the Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. DiPaolo, reprimanding him and issuing a three-day suspension without pay, for failing to place a student assigned specifically to him for supervision and assistance in her seat; walking to the back of the bus while the bus driver had to secure the student in her seat; and failing to immediately report the incident to the Transportation Department as a student safety issue. Mr. DiPaolo was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group II, Section (13), Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties; Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (4), Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work; and Policy 6.301: Ethics, Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Again, Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 37, states, in pertinent part: Bus Aides 5. Drivers are to remain in the driver's compartment. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 59-Y, states, in pertinent part: Responsibilities of a School Bus Aide To load and unload students and assist driver as needed. * * * 3. To ensure that all students are secured and when appropriate, secure restraining devices, i.e. seat belts, safety vest, infant seats, and toddler seats. * * * 6. To recognize individual student capabilities and exceptionalities while maintaining order on the bus and administer to their individual needs as required. At page 59-D, the Operations Handbook provides, in pertinent part: Operating Procedure No. 27, Responsibilities of the School Bus Driver Related to Board of Education Rules 6A-3 25. To report immediately to the director or supervisor of transportation, school principal or other designated officials: a. Misconduct on the part of any student while on bus or under the driver's immediate supervision, The Department of Education Bureau of Professional Practices Services' handout, provided during training of bus drivers, provides, in pertinent part: INTERACTION WITH STUDENTS: Keep hands and other parts of your body to yourself. TIPS FOR STAFF WITH AGGRESSIVE STUDENTS: DON'TS: Do not physically handle the student. Do not react aggressively in return. * * * 5. Do not create punitive consequences to "get even" with the student. Department of Education Recommendation: Discipline The bus driver has no authority to slap, spank or abuse any child. By School Board policy, Petitioner has made the standards for educators applicable to even its non-educational personnel, such as bus attendants and bus drivers. Policy 6.301 concerns employee ethics and provides in pertinent part: (2) All employees shall familiarize themselves with the 'Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida,' located in the State Board of Education Rules. All employees shall abide by the Code at all times and shall be held to the standards of the Code in all matters related to their employment with the Hernando County School Board. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, which is provided to Petitioner's employees with their copy of Petitioner's Policy 6.301, provides in pertinent part: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * e. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner's Policy 6.301 (3), reads: The School Board of Hernando County supports strong internal control in its procedures and practices. All incidents of suspected improprieties should be reported using the Board approved Compliant [sic] Policy. Petitioner's 2007-2008 Staff Handbook provides, in pertinent part: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety, and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. School Board Policy 6.37 -- Group (II) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP II OFFENSES (13) Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. School Board Policy 6.37 - Group (III) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP III OFFENSES (4) Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work. (10) On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board. The parties stipulated that this case does not present a situation of progressive discipline, and accordingly, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to quote or discuss the levels of discipline permissible under Groups II and III of Policy 6.37 or Policy 6.38. It further appears that combinations of the penalties of written reprimand and suspension, with or without pay, are authorized, and each offense is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Also, it appears that all penalties listed in any School Board Policy are recommended, but not mandatory, to apply to specific offenses and that the penalty utilized is to be discretionary with management, per Policies 6.37, and 6.38. Policy 6.38, authorizes the Superintendent to suspend employees without pay for up to 10 days as a disciplinary measure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner: Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent O'Brien's reprimand and suspension without pay for five days; and Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent DiPaolo's reprimand and suspension without pay for three days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 15th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Hwy. 19 North, Ste. 110 Clearwater, FL 33761 Dr. Wayne Alexander, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Warren Hayward, Sr., should be disciplined as an employee of the School Board?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Warren Hayward, Sr., began employment as a school bus driver with the School Board sometime in either 1980 or 1981. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hayward was a bus driver for the School Board. At the time that Mr. Hayward began his employment as a bus driver with the School Board, he was given a copy of the School Bus Driver's Handbook by Mr. David Conrad Meyer, the Supervisor Director of Transportation of the School Board. Mr. Meyer was Mr. Hayward's immediate supervisor. Mr. Meyer also Supervised the other seven school bus drivers who worked for the School Board. Mr. Meyer was responsible for evaluating the eight school bus drivers and insuring their compliance with the law concerning the operation of school buses. Mr. Meyer had driven a school bus from 1972 until 1979 and has been Director of Transportation since 1979. On the morning of December 4, 1985, Mr. Hayward stopped at one of the regular stops on his route along Bay City Road in Apalachicola, Franklin County, Florida. There was a dirt turn around road off of Bay City Road which Mr. Hayward drove the bus around and up to the pavement of Bay City Road where he stopped the bus to pick up students. After stopping the bus that morning, Allen Dempsey, Lloyd Alford and William Thomas Jenkins, who were all friends, entered the bus with a few other students. Allen and Lloyd were in the ninth grade and Billy was in the seventh grade at the time of the incident. They all attended Apalachicola High School. The last three students to enter the bus were Allen, followed by Lloyd and then Billy. Students had been directed in the past that the first five seats of the bus were to be used only by elementary school students. On occasion, other students were required to sit in the first five seats as a disciplinary precaution. Other than those exceptions, the older students, including Allen, Lloyd and Billy had been instructed not to sit in the first five seats of the bus. Upon entering the bus on December 4, 1985, Allen, Lloyd and Billy proceeded to the middle to rear portion of the bus. Before Allen or Billy could get into a seat, Mr. Hayward began moving the bus. Mr. Hayward started the bus without warning and without insuring that all of the students were in their seats. When the bus first moved it jerked. When the bus began to move, Billy fell backwards into the seat and hit his head against the inside of the outer wall on the side of the bus. Lloyd, who had taken the seat across the aisle from Billy and had witnessed Billy fall, asked him if he was okay. Billy said that he was a little dizzy. As a result of the fall, Billy eventually had a knot on the back of his head. Billy did not suffer an permanent injuries, however. After Billy told Lloyd that he was little dizzy, Lloyd stood up and yelled toward Mr. Hayward that "you are suppose to wait until we are seated before taking off--you made Billy fall and hurt himself" or words to that effect. In response to Lloyd's comment, Mr. Hayward stopped the bus, got up out of his seat and stood in the aisle next to his seat. Mr. Hayward replied, in effect, that "you could have used one of the first five seats; I only have to wait until you are past the first five seats." Mr. Hayward then sat down and proceeded on his route. At no time on December 4, 1985, did Mr. Hayward inquire about Billy's fall or go back to where Billy was seated to check on him. Nor did Mr. Hayward report the incident to Mr. Meyer or any other person. At the time of the incident there were approximately fifteen students on the bus. None of the students, including Billy, reported the incident of December 4, 1985, to anyone at school that day. On the evening of December 4, 1985, Billy reported the incident to his Mother when he arrived home. After inspecting the knot which had appeared on Billy's head, Billy's parents, Lloyd and Billy went to the home of the principal of Apalachicola High School, Mr. Fox, and reported the incident. Mr. Fox sent the Jenkins family and Lloyd to see Ms. Gloria Tucker, the Franklin County Superintendent of Schools. Ms. Tucker met with them and observed the knot on the back of Billy's head. Ms. Tucker told Billy's parents that, if they wished to make a complaint, they would have to do so in writing the next morning. She also told them that she would contact Mr. Meyer and inform him that they wanted to make a complaint. After the Jenkins family and Lloyd departed, Ms. Tucker called Mr. Meyer and reported the incident to him. Mr. Meyer had not been told of the incident until this time. She directed Mr. Meyer to take the statements of the Jenkins family and the other students and to look into the matter. On the morning of December 5, 1985, Mr. Fox asked Allen, Lloyd, Billy and Matthew Cramer to write a statement describing the incident of the day before. Matthew Cramer was a student who was already on the bus on December 4, 1985, when Billy entered the bus. Matthew witnessed the incident of December 4, 1985. All of the students and Billy's parents filed statements. Because the statements were given on December 5, 1985 all of the students, except Billy, dated their reports as of that date. Billy dated his statement December 4, 1985, the date of the incident as opposed to the date he made the statement. At some point shortly after the incident, Billy was seen by a physician and his head was x-rayed. Mr. Meyer sent a letter dated December 9, 1985, to Mr. Hayward informing him that a complaint concerning the December 4, 1985, incident had been received and that it would be reported to the School Board at the regularly scheduled meeting on December 11, 1985. A copy of the written statements made by the students and Billy's parents was attached to the letter. Mr. Hayward, who received the letter and statements, was also told that he could respond if he wished. No response to this letter or the complaint was made by Mr. Hayward at that time. Billy's parents and other parents attended the School Board meeting on December 11, 1985. Because of concerns expressed by the parents for the safety of students riding Mr. Hayward's bus and concern for Mr. Hayward's safety, Ms. Tucker directed Mr. Meyer to ride with Mr. Hayward on his bus route. By letter dated December 12, 1985, Ms. Tucker informed Mr. Hayward that the Board had authorized her to commission an investigation concerning the incident of December 4, 1985, and other alleged incidents, and that J. Patrick Floyd, Esquire, Ms. Tucker's attorney, would conduct the investigation. Ms. Tucker also informed Mr. Hayward that the School Board had Suspended him with pay until the January, 1986, meeting of the School Board. Mr. Floyd conducted an investigation of the December 4, 1985, incident and other incidents, and submitted a written report to Ms. Tucker before the January 16, 1986, School Board meeting. At no time, however, did Mr. Floyd talk to Mr. Hayward. Ms. Tucker also discussed the report with Mr. Floyd. Based upon Mr. Floyd's report and based upon Ms. Tucker's understanding of other incidents involving Mr. Hayward's operation of his bus, Ms. Tucker recommended to the School Board that Mr. Hayward be terminated as an employee. Mr. Floyd's report was presented to the School Board at its January 16, 1986, meeting. A copy of the report was also provided to Mr. Hayward. By letter dated January 17, 1986, counsel for the School Board informed Mr. Hayward and his counsel that Mr. Floyd's report and Ms. Tucker's recommendation had been presented to the School Board meeting of January 16, 1986, and that the School Board would consider the report and recommendation at its February 4, 1986, meeting. The letter indicated that Mr. Hayward could attend the meeting to discuss the report and to present witnesses and other evidence. By letter dated January 30, 1986, Mr. Hayward responded to the School Board through his counsel. In a memorandum dated February 3, 1986, Ms. Tucker informed the School Board that she could not attend the School Board meeting of February 4, 1986, and restated her recommendation that Mr. Hayward's employment be terminated. At its February 4, 1986, meeting, the School Board decided to terminate Mr. Hayward as an employee of the School Board. This decision was reached after allowing counsel for Mr. Hayward to respond to the allegations concerning Mr. Hayward's operation of his school bus. In a letter dated February 13, 1986, counsel for the School Board informed Mr. Hayward and his counsel that Mr. Hayward had been terminated from employment by the School Board and informed them of Mr. Hayward's right to request an administrative hearing to contest the decision. In a letter dated February 28, 1986, Mr. Hayward requested an administrative hearing to contest his termination from employment by the School Board. Mr. Hayward had started his bus in motion before all students on the bus were seated on other occasions before the December 4, 1985, incident. Several other complaints concerning Mr. Hayward's operation of his bus had been received in writing by Mr. Meyer prior to the December 4, 1985, incident. Mr. Meyer only investigated reports if the complaining party made a written report of the incident. No written complaints concerning the operation of a bus have been received by Mr. Meyer concerning any other driver. Two written complaints have been received about another driver but those complaints did not concern the safe operation of a school bus. One complaint received by Mr. Meyer was from Ms. Donna Ward, a secretary at Chapman Elementary School. The complaint concerned an incident witnessed by Ms. Ward on May 26, 1981. Ms. Ward heard persistent horn blowing outside the school and went outside of the front of the school to investigate. It was raining and the circular drive used to pick up children by parents and the school bus drivers was full of waiting cars and buses. Mr. Hayward's bus was out on the street near the entrance of the driveway and Mr. Hayward was blowing the horn. The cars in front of him could not move, however. Nor was the area exclusively for use by the school buses. Mr. Hayward had been told to arrive early to avoid difficulty getting his bus to the pickup point within the driveway. He had also been told that the driveway at the school was available for use by parents and not just school buses. After blowing the horn for approximately four to five minutes, Mr. Hayward drove the bus to the exit of the driveway. Mr. Hayward then began to back the bus into the driveway in front of another bus parked at the curb. As he did so, students began exiting the building. Ms. Ward grabbed one student who ran behind Mr. Hayward's backing bus and pulled him back onto the sidewalk. No one was behind the bus giving Mr. Hayward directions as he backed the bus into a school grounds area congested with students and vehicles. Mr. Hayward's actions in backing the bus were not safe. At some point along Mr. Hayward's bus route along Bluff Road, the road crosses a railroad track. Mr. Hayward must cross the tracks once on his way out Bluff Road, turn around after picking up students and cross the tracks again on his way back. On one occasion, Mr. Hayward failed to stop at the crossing on his way out Bluff Road even though the warning lights were flashing. On his way back along Bluff Road, Mr. Hayward did stop the bus but failed to open the doors of the bus before crossing the tracks. On another occasion, Mr. Hayward slowed the bus at the railroad crossing but did not stop until he was already on or very near the tracks and observed a crane moving on the tracks. Mr. Hayward then slammed on the brakes and backed the bus up. The sudden stop of the bus caused an elementary student to hit and bloody her nose. The warning lights on Bluff Road which Mr. Hayward had to cross malfunctioned on a number of occasions. On one occasion, the light malfunctioned while Mr. Meyer was riding with Mr. Hayward. Mr. Hayward followed safe procedures on this occasion. Although the lights did malfunction on occasion, they also worked properly on other occasions. Mr. Hayward has received two driving citations and accumulated six points on his driving record. These citations were associated with his driving of his personal automobile and not a school bus. On May 4, 1983, Mr. Hayward was cited for faulty brakes and received two points. On this occasion, Mr. Hayward was unable to stop his car because his brakes failed. He drove into the wall of a store. Mr. Hayward had the brakes repaired approximately two weeks before this incident. On June 15, 1984, Mr. Hayward was cited for speeding and received four points. None of the other seven school bus drivers of the School Board have received driving citations during the past seven years. Except for a few students in Carrabelle, no black students ride the school bus in Franklin County. This is because, although black students make up approximately thirty-five percent of the student population, they all live within one mile of their schools and only students who live more than one mile from their schools are provided bus transportation. Therefore, the route driven by Mr. Hayward included stops for only white students. Mr. Hayward was the only black bus driver ever employed by the School Board. Mr. Hayward was the President of the N.A.A.C.P. for Franklin County during 1984, and had been active in community affairs. Among the activities Mr. Hayward was involved in were the adoption of single-member districts for the School Board. The School Board ultimately approved single-member districting for Franklin County. None of the members of the School Board who took part in the decision to terminate Mr. Hayward's employment with the School Board were elected to the School Board after single-member districting was adopted. When Mr. Hayward first applied for his position with the School Board, he was told by Mr. Meyer that there was no vacancy. Mr. Hayward contacted the Franklin County Superintendent of Schools, Ms. Tucker, about what Mr. Meyer told him. After Ms. Tucker spoke with Mr. Meyer, Mr. Meyer gave Mr. Hayward an application and ultimately was hired as a bus driver. On May 3, 1985, a meeting was held between Mr. Hayward, Ms. Tucker, Mr. Fox, Ms. Rose McCoy, the Principal of Chapman Elementary School and two others. Ms. Tucker scheduled the meeting because of problems voiced by Mr. Hayward concerning the treatment of discipline referrals by the Principals and complaints concerning Mr. Hayward's treatment of students and the two Principals. Mr. Hayward identified four students as discipline problems during this meeting. None of the students involved in the December 4, 1985, incident were named as problem students by Mr. Hayward. Mr. Fox agreed to administer corporal punishment to one of the students named by Mr. Hayward at the meeting and offered to allow Mr. Hayward to witness the punishment. Mr. Hayward declined. There is a relationship between a school bus driver's ability to manage students and the safe operation of a school bus. A driver must be able to manage students. The most important consideration for a school bus driver is the safety and health of the driver's student passengers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a Final Order terminating Mr. Hayward's employment as a school bus driver for the School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0970 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection See 1. The first sentence is a summary of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. See 42 and 45. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding. The number of black drivers "currently" employed is not relevant to this proceeding. 3-4 3. 3, 33 and 41. The fourth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Summary of testimony and not proposed findings of fact. See 4, 9, 16 and 19. The weight of the evidence proved that the injury took place on December 4, 1985. 14. The first sentence is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 15-17 and 20. 10-11 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5. Matthew Cramer was not good friends with the other three individuals. Not Supported by the weight of the evidence. See 35-37. 14-17 Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43. The evidence failed to prove that a consent decree was entered as a result of Mr. Hayward's effort. 44. The evidence failed to prove, however, that the fact contained in the first sentence had any effect on the action taken by the School Board against Mr. Hayward. The last sentence is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The second sentence is a conclusion of law. 22-25 These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. Summary of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. See 34. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Summary of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. The first paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last paragraph is irrelevant. Hereby accepted. 29 18. Irrelevant. Conclusion of law. 32-33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1, 4-5 and 13. The date of the incident was December 4, 1985 and not December 4 or 5, 1985. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2 6. 3 5 and 7-8. 4 8 and 9. The evidence failed to prove that medical attention was required. 5 10 and 11. 6 12. 7 7. 8 32. 9 7. 10 15-17. 11 18 and 20. 12 22 and 23. 13 23 and 25. 14 35 and 36. 15 46. 16 33. Mr. Meyer received two complaints about one other driver and not complaints about two other drivers. 17 3, 47 and 48. 18 2. 33, 38 and 40. The last sentence is true but not relevant because the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Hayward was placed on disciplinary probation. The next to the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 34. The first paragraph was not supported by the weight of the evidence. The evidence concerning this paragraph was hearsay. The fourth paragraph is irrelevant. 24 and 28. The last sentence is not relevant. 22 28 and 29. 23 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Van P. Russell, Esquire Watkins and Russell 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Robert Woolfork, Esquire The Murphy House 317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gloria Tucker, Superintendent Franklin County School Board 155 Avenue E Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Martin B. Schapp Administrator 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly suspended Petitioner's Contract for Transportation of School Children and revoked his license to drive a school bus.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's method of providing transportation for its students is unique in the state of Florida because it contracts annually with independent contractors for each bus route. Pursuant to the contract, independent contractors furnish a bus or busses and are responsible for employing qualified drivers. In order to be qualified, drivers must hold a license issued by Respondent pursuant to Rule 6A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and Petitioner entered into an annual contract for Petitioner to transport school children in Bus #657 for the 1991-1992 school year. At all times material hereto, the parties continued to perform under the terms of the 1991-1992 contract because Respondent was still negotiating the bus contracts for the 1992-1993 school year. Petitioner had been an independent bus contractor for approximately nineteen (19) years. The contract provided no guarantee that Respondent would renew its contract with Petitioner from year to year. At all times material hereto, Petitioner's wife, Eloise J. Lester, was the independent bus contractor for Bus #28. At all times material hereto, Petitioner held a Florida Department of Education school bus license issued by Respondent to operate a school bus. He had been licensed to drive a school bus for Respondent for nineteen (19) years. During that time, he had driven a bus on the Plummer Road route approximately 1,800 times with no reported mishaps. His prior record as a bus driver and bus contractor was unblemished. Respondent uses the Florida School Bus Drivers Handbook, published by the Florida Department of Education, as the curriculum to initially train drivers and for annual in-service training. Respondent gives a copy of this handbook to every driver. On the morning of February 8, 1993, Petitioner was driving his wife's bus #28 with students on board. He approached the railroad crossing at 9520 Plummer Road, stopped, and opened the door. Petitioner saw the Norfolk Southern Railroad train #229 a "good ways" down the track. The railroad crossing signals, flashing lights and bells, were activated indicating that the train was approaching the crossing. The engineer blew the train's whistle. Despite these warnings, Petitioner drove the bus across the tracks in front of the approaching train. The bus cleared the tracks just seconds before the train entered the crossing. The engineer, Jimmy W. Carter, and the conductor, Everett Maine, witnessed the incident and immediately reported the "near miss" to the railroad yard by radio. Later they prepared written incident reports. Norfolk Southern Railroad reported the incident to Respondent. Mr. Carter has been a train engineer for twenty-five (25) years. Mr. Maine has been a train conductor for forty-three (43) years. They were not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident. They were not involved in any conspiracy to harm Petitioner. Ms. Ruby C. Mardis lives near the crossing. She was waiting for the bus in her driveway with her grandchildren on the morning of February 8, 1993. She testified that she did not know where the train was when the bus crossed the tracks. She did not remember hearing any bells or whistles. Petitioner testified that he could see the light of the approaching train before he entered the crossing. He denied that the crossing lights were flashing or that the alarm bells were ringing at that time. However, Petitioner stated that under certain circumstances, even if the crossing signals were activated, he had discretion to cross the tracks, i.e. when there is no train in sight or a train is stopped on the track. The eyewitness testimony of the engineer and the conductor relative to the activated signals and the distance of the train from the crossing at the time Petitioner drove across the tracts is more persuasive than any testimony to the contrary. After completing an investigation, the Director of Transportation, as the designee of the Superintendent made a determination in writing to suspend Petitioner's bus contract and revoke his school bus driver's license effective February 19, 1993. The initial suspension of the contract and revocation of the license was not permanent because both actions were subject to review by Respondent. The Respondent has discretion to enter into a new bus contract with Petitioner and to reinstate Petitioner's school bus license provided he meets the requirements of Rule 6A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code. In March of 1993, Respondent assigned the contract for Route #657 (School Bus #657) to Petitioner's wife at her request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order affirming the suspension of Petitioner's bus contract and revoking his school bus license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of May, 1995. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 17th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in paragraph 6 of this Recommended Order. Accepted in paragraphs 2-4 of this Recommended Order. Accept that the testimony of the witnesses is in conflict. However, the testimony of the engineer and conductor is more persuasive than the testimony of the neighbor, the Petitioner, or any other witness. Rejected. The suspension and revocation was subject to review by Respondent and will not become final until the Respondent issues a Final Order in this proceeding. Respondent has discretion to enter into a new contract with Petitioner and to reissue a school bus license. Rejected. Ms. Mardis did not see the bus as it crossed the tracks. The testimony of the engineer and the conductor is more persuasive. Rejected. The testimony of the engineer and the conductor is more persuasive. Rejected. The contract was suspended and the license revoked subject to review by Respondent. Even though the contract does not expressly provide for an appeal to Respondent under the facts and circumstances of this case, the right to review is implicit in the contract. Rejected. Regardless of what was said at staff meetings or in conference with Petitioner, the contract was not suspended and the license not revoked until Petitioner was notified in writing. Even then the adverse decisions were reviewable by Respondent. The contract does not specifically provide Petitioner an opportunity to explain why his contract should not be suspended and his license revoked at the time of the staff conference. The suspension and revocation was subject to review before the Respondent. Moreover, Respondent has provided Petitioner with a due process hearing by referring this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Rejected. Ms. Lester was paid for transporting students in Bus 657 for the balance of the 1992-1993 school year beginning March of 1993. Since that time, Ms. Lester has been paid for transporting children in Bus 657. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.--15. Accepted in paragraphs 1-12 of this Recommended Order. 16.--17. Accepted in paragraphs 1-2 of this Recommended Order. 18.--19. Accepted in paragraph in paragraph 11 of this Recommended Order. Accepted but unnecessary to resolution of case. Accepted but not at issue in this case. 22.--23. Accepted in paragraph 3. 24.--25. Accepted in paragraph 12 of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mullin, Esq. 26 S. 5th St. Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Clay Meux, Esq. Vicki Reynolds, Esq. 600 City Hall 220 E. Bay St. Jackonsville, FL 32202 Dr. Larry Zenke Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32207-8154 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Kasha Brunson, and whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Maria Colina.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brunson has been employed by the School District since August 20, 1996. She is currently a bus attendant in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Brunson has had excellent performance evaluations. Ms. Colina has been employed by the School District since February 9, 2000. She is currently a bus operator in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Colina has had excellent performance evaluations. Both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPLAC) and the School Board. Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides: "Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause." The SPLAC agreement does not specifically define just cause, but Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides that allegations of misconduct and poor job performance, which could result in suspension without pay or termination of employment, could be investigated, and a recommendation for discipline could be made to the superintendent as a result of the investigation. Provision 7.11 of the SPLAC agreement provides: [D]isciplinary action(s) taken against SPLAC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the provisions of 7.10 of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Colina was the bus operator, and Ms. Brunson was the bus attendant on Bus 134. The bus was assigned to pick up exceptional education students on its morning route to East Lee County High School (East Lee County). The bus has approximately six rows of seats. On December 7, 2010, the bus had two stops for East Lee County and picked up students C.E., a female, and T.T., a male, for delivery to East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. are tenth-grade students; however, they are mentally delayed and function between a fourth and sixth-grade level. In late October 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been advised to keep C.E. and T.T. separated. The students were not to speak to one another, and they were not to sit together. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were not told the reason why they were to keep the students separated, and they both assumed the students had been involved in an argument. On December 7, 2010, the bus arrived at East Lee County approximately 15 minutes prior to the bell ringing. Ms. Brunson, Ms. Colina, and the two students remained on the bus while waiting for the school to open. T.T. was seated in a seat at the rear of the bus across from Ms. Brunson. C.E. was in a seat at the front of the bus directly behind Ms. Colina, five rows in front of Ms. Brunson. T.T. asked Ms. Brunson for permission to change the radio station. She gave permission, and T.T. got up and walked to the front of the bus where he changed the station on the on-board radio. In order to change the radio station, he had to reach across Ms. Colina. Instead of returning to his assigned seat, T.T. sat down next to C.E. in her seat. Neither Ms. Brunson nor Ms. Colina saw T.T. sit next to C.E. At some point, Ms. Brunson observed T.T. in the seat with C.E. She felt that something inappropriate was happening, and she called T.T. back to his seat. Ms. Brunson reported the incident to Dale Maybin (Mr. Maybin), her supervisor for that day, as soon as C.E. and T.T. left the bus. Later in the morning, she also advised Shannan Pugh (Ms. Pugh), who was the paraprofessional who was supervising C.E. and T.T. at their work site. She told Ms. Pugh that, when T.T. stood up from C.E.'s seat, she saw C.E.'s head "pop up." In addition to the East Lee County delivery, Bus 134 was assigned to a route for students at Manatee Elementary School (Manatee). The Manatee route began after the completion of the East Lee County route. On the morning of December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been assigned two additional students to the Manatee route beginning on December 9, 2010. At the time of the incident involving T.T. and C.E., both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina claim that they were doing paperwork related to the assignment of two new students. Bus drivers are given 15 minutes each morning and 15 minutes each afternoon to do a pre-trip inspection and to do paperwork. The paperwork involved in adding the two students to the bus route was minimal. The students' names would be added to the seating chart, and the students' names and I.D. numbers would be added to a Medicaid form. Once the bus arrived at Manatee where the students were to be delivered, the driver would receive additional information from the school and fill out a TR-1 form and get an emergency information card, which was to be placed in the bus. At the time of the incident on December 7, 2010, the only paperwork that needed to be done would be to add the names of the new students to the seating chart and to place the students' names and I.D. numbers on the Medicaid form. Although Ms. Colina had the responsibility of completing the paperwork, she and Ms. Brunson divided the paperwork. The longest time that it should have taken each person to do the paperwork was a couple of minutes. Respondents claim that they were unable to adequately supervise the students because of attending to paperwork is not credible. The amount of time that it would have taken to do the paperwork was minimal and should not have precluded Respondents from keeping an eye on the students. Additionally, Respondents should not have been doing their paperwork at the same time. Obviously, if both Respondents are doing paperwork at the same time, no one is watching the students. Because Respondents were doing paperwork does not relieve them of the responsibility of adequately supervising the students and keeping the students separated. The reason that C.E. and T.T. were separated stemmed from an incident in October 2010, when C.E. and T.T. had engaged in inappropriate activity during a work study program. C.E., T.T., and five other students were assigned to work off-campus at a grocery store. The students were supervised by two paraprofessionals from East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. left the area in the grocery store where they were assigned and went into the men's restroom together. C.E. admitted having sexual contact with T.T. while in the men's restroom. School officials changed the classroom and work study schedules of the two students to eliminate contact between the students. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were aware that C.E. and T.T. no longer went to the work site on the same days. No disciplinary actions were taken against the two paraprofessionals as a result of the incident at the grocery store. From late October 2010 to December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina kept C.E. and T.T. separated while on the bus, and the students did not engage in any inappropriate contact on the bus until the incident at issue. Respondents claim that they would have been more diligent in supervising the students if they had known that the reason that the students were being separated was for previous sexual misconduct. This reasoning for failure to adequately supervise is no excuse. Respondents should have adhered to their charge of keeping the students separated no matter the reason for the students being separated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that there is just cause to discipline Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina and suspending Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina without pay from March 8, 2011, to January 1, 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Respondent's employment as a school bus driver with the Pinellas County Schools should be terminated because of the matters alleged in the Superintendent's Charging Letter dated June 10, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, operated the system of public elementary and secondary education in Pinellas County Florida. Included within that function was the operation of the public school bus system. Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver. On May 8, 1996, Respondent was operating his school bus as required on the afternoon run from school to disembarkation points along the routes. According to several students who were riding the bus that day, a male student, otherwise identified only as Nick, was misbehaving on the bus by standing up while the bus was moving and being unnecessarily noisy. This conduct prompted a censure by the Respondent, who told the student to sit down and be quiet. When the bus reached the stop at Winding Wood Road, just off Countryside Boulevard, Nick, while disembarking from the bus, called the Respondent a "nigger." This was overheard by several students, one of whom, Stephanie Erin Clark, also was to disembark at that location. Erin and two other students, both of whom were seated in the front row of seats, one on each side of the bus, observed Respondent get up from the driver's seat and, while the bus' engine was still running, push other children who were on the bus steps out of the way and chase Nick down the side of the street in front of the bus. While Respondent was off the bus, it started to roll down the hill with students still aboard. This resulted in a frightening situation for many of the students, some of whom began to scream. After he had gone about 30 feet from the bus, Respondent apparently heard the screaming and stopped chasing Nick. When he saw the bus moving, he ran back to it, climbed aboard, resumed his seat and brought the bus to a stop. By this time it had traveled between ten and twenty feet from where he had left it. Fortunately, no one was hurt as a result of this incident. When he resumed his seat on the bus, Respondent was overheard by students in the seats immediately behind his to comment to himself words to the effect, "I'm going to get him and break his neck. He called me Nigger." When this matter was reported to the appropriate authorities, an investigation was conducted into the allegations which investigation confirmed the substance of those matters alleged. According to the Pinellas County Schools' Director of Transportation, Mr. Fleming, himself an African-American with many years experience in public school transportation, both with this agency and in Maryland, Respondent's actions were not appropriate. The most important figure in the bus driver program is the driver. He or she must control the bus and the students and remain with the bus at all times to insure the safety of the students. Mr. Fleming has handled situations similar to that shown here in a much different way. When a student commented about him in a racially derogative way, he returned the bus with the student aboard to the school and took the student to the principal for appropriate action. Mr. Fleming considers the proposed action in this case to be appropriate to the circumstances. The allegations in this matter were investigated by James Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, who found Respondent's misconduct to be so serious as to jeopardize the safety of the students entrusted to him. This constituted a severe lapse in judgement on the part of the driver and amounted to employee misconduct in office which justifies dismissal under the provision of Board policy 6Gx52-5.31, Section 1v.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County sustain the Superintendent's action of June 5, 1996 suspending Respondent without pay and, further, dismiss him from employment with the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Kieth B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Mr. Larry Jackson 1482 Franklin Street, Apt 7 Clearwater, Florida 34615 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Rule 6A-3.0141(1)(a) Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact History of Rule 6A-0141 Prior to the promulgation of Rule 6A-3.0141, effective August 1, 1986, the Department did not have an established mandatory retirement age for public school bus drivers. It is not known how many drivers remained employed after reaching age 70. The mandatory retirement age of 70 originated from the concern expressed by transportation personnel in several local school districts about the great variance in the quality of physical examinations given to screen drivers for safety. The old rule allowed school districts to designate any licensed physician to administer the physical, and, in many cases, drivers were going to family physicians who were hesitant to fail them. The mandatory retirement age of 70 was adopted to address this concern, however, the old rule provision allowing local school districts to designate any licensed physician to conduct physical exams went unchanged. Larry McEntire, Administrator of the Department's School Transportation Management Section, worked to formulate the new rule with the five or six members of the standing rules committee of the Florida Association for Pupil Transportation (FAPT), which is comprised of personnel from the local school districts. The rule change instituted comprehensive classroom and on-the-road driver training requirements. The anew age restriction was not controversial; in fact the official published justification for the rule mentioned only the new training requirements, not the new mandatory retirement age. The particular age of 70 was arrived at through information provided by other states, ten of which had a mandatory retirement age of 70, consistent with the age-70 limitation on coverage under the federal ADEA at the time. No Florida school bus accident data, which was then viewed as unreliable, was used in choosing 70 as the age for mandatory retirement. No Florida statute suggested that age in general, or age 70 in particular, be used as a criterion in establishing qualifications for Florida school bus drivers. With regard to training and increased frequency of physical examinations at age 65 and over, the rule is patterned after the safety standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, the mandatory retirement age of 70 is in direct conflict with the NHTSA standards in effect then and now, which recommend no mandatory retirement age. The Department received a survey of state directors of pupil transportation on September 3, 1985, which was issued August 29, 1985, by the National School Transportation Association, indicating that at least 30 states had no age limit at that time for employment as a school bus driver. Although Mr. McEntire had previously seen the 1969 study by Promisel in his master's program in transportation and safety at Florida State University, neither that study nor any other study or data analysis was presented to or considered by the FAPT rules committee or others in the Department. Mr. McEntire is not aware of any study, data, or analysis considered during rulemaking which contained a recommendation that age 70 be adopted as a mandatory retirement age for school bus drivers. Mr. McEntire is unaware of whether the School Health Advisory Committee of the Florida Medical Association (FMA), which has a longstanding relationship with the Department, has ever recommended adoption of a mandatory retirement age of 70 as a means of ensuring that school bus drivers have the necessary qualifications to drive safely. Mr. McEntire and the FAPT rules committee did see a two-page document from Iowa entitled "In re Sievert Van Dyke" which reported, among other things, that "school bus drivers under 30 years and over 65 have a disproportionately large number of accidents," that "30, 40, 50 percent of the variability can be predicted on the basis of age," and that "sudden incapacity due to medical defects becomes significantly more frequent in any group reaching age 60." In Rule 6A-3.0141 several statutes are cited as specific authority for the rule and certain other statutes are cited as the specific laws implemented. None of the provisions of law mentioned in the rule requires a mandatory 70 year retirement age for public school bus drivers. The Student Transportation Coordinator for the Florida Highway Patrol, which has regulatory jurisdiction over approximately 4,000 private school bus drivers in Florida, was aware when the Department of Education instituted a mandatory retirement age of 70. The jurisdiction and mission of the Florida Highway Patrol in this regard directly parallels the mission of the Department of Education concerning public school bus drivers. While the Florida Highway Patrol requires drivers age 65 and over to have a physical examination semiannually rather than annually, as does the Department of Education, there is no age limitation for driver certification, there has never been one, and no change is planned in this policy. Age and Accident Risk Patricia J. Waller, Ph.D., is the Associate Director for Driver Studies at the University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center, Director of the University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center, and research professor at the University of North Carolina Center for Policy and Health. She is an expert in the area of driver licensing and crash safety. Dr. Patricia Waller has studied the relationship between age and accident rate. The results of Dr. Waller's research as it relates to age and crash risk are that when number of miles driven is considered, there is an increase in crash risk. Dr. Patricia Waller was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences to write a paper, "Renewal Licensure of the Elderly Driver," to be included in a comprehensive study that was done on transportation in an aging society. The publication in which Dr. Waller's paper appears officially came out in October 11, 1988. Dr. Patricia Waller's paper, "Renewal Licensure of the Elderly Driver", was done after a review of all the literature that was available on the topic of licensure and re-licensure of older drivers. The literature available included studies related to age and accident rate. Studies have shown that drivers over 65 years of age as a group behave very responsibly in driving situations. Older drivers tend to restrict their own driving to the best time and locations. For example, because of marked vision changes that occur with increasing age, older drivers reduce their nighttime driving; also, older drivers also tend to reduce their driving in cases of inclement weather or during heavy traffic times. Despite the fact that older drivers restrict their own driving so that it is less demanding, there is still an increase in crash risk with increasing age. The crash rate increases for people in their middle to late fifties, particularly when the number of miles driven in considered. However, the crash risk increases even more for individuals in their early to late sixties. With respect to drivers in their sixties and seventies, age is associated with an increasingly accelerated risk of crash. There is also an increase in crash risk per mile with increasing age. It is Dr. P. Waller's opinion that the Department should set a mandatory retirement age for school bus drivers because the crash data on licensed drivers indicates increasing involvement after age 65. It is also Dr. P. Waller's opinion that it is in everybody's best interest that older people as a group be allowed to meet personal transportation needs by retaining their driver's license for as long as possible. She feels there are tradeoffs that allow us to say we are willing to accept the highway safety risk in order to enable this person to continue to function independently. Dr. P. Waller does not believe that the state of the art permits adequate testing to determine the ability to safely drive; however, she is not a medical doctor fully versed in medical testing. For her proposition that older school bus drivers should have the same crash risk as older drivers generally, Dr. P. Waller relied on the Promisel data. The Promisel data, set forth in a 1969 report from Dunlap and Associates on school bus safety and operator age in relation to school bus accidents, shows that the number of crashes increases very dramatically with age, particularly when the number of miles driven is considered. The Promisel study found no correlation between age and accident severity, recommended against the establishment of school bus driver age limits, specifically disclaimed any causal relationship between age and accidents, and made no analysis of accident risk associated with age 65 or over. The skewed age population in the Promisel study and the "generational cohort effect" (simply stated, the older a study of drivers, the less validity it may have for current drivers) render any accident risk projections from that study to today's 70-and-over Florida school bus drivers unreliable. Finally, it is Dr. P. Waller's opinion that age 70 is an arbitrary number and that any set age is arbitrary, however, she is aware of no alterative to using age as the cutoff standard in order to maximize safety. Dr. Julian Waller is a medical doctor and also has a Master of Public Health Degree in Epidemiology. For the past 20 years, he has been employed at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. Since 1978, Dr. J. Waller has been a professor of medicine in the geriatric unit. Dr. J. Waller is an expert in the areas of human physiology as it relates to driving and medical impairment to driving; also, Dr. J. Waller is an expert in the area of statistics. Dr. J. Waller has not examined a patient since 1961. He is not certified in the sub- specialty of geriatric medicine and he is not familiar with the term heteroschistosity. He has not personally studied bus drivers. According to Dr. J. Waller, there are four basic driving tasks, all of which involve some type of commercial driving, that put excessive stress on drivers. The specific categories are: driving a bus, driving a large truck, driving an ambulance, and driving a police or fire vehicle. In order to drive a vehicle of any type, four types of capabilities are needed: (1) the person must be alert; (2) the person must be able to identify things in the environment that potentially represent a threat; (3) the person must be able to make timely and appropriate decisions; and (4) the person must be capable of carrying out the decision in a timely and appropriate manner. Normal changes occur as an individual ages that may affect his ability to perform the tasks required in a driving situation. Vision normally deteriorates with increasing age. There may be a narrowing of visual fields, a decrease in ability to adapt to dark situations, and problems associated with glare. An area of concern that may affect older individuals is contrast sensitivity. An individual with problems in this area may have absolutely normal static visual acuity. That is, he can read a typical Snellan chart very easily, but cannot read signs or other things in the environmental which are not perfect contrast of black and white. A person affected by contrast sensitivity may not be aware of many things in their environment, such as traffic signs and street signs unless they are black and white. Complex reaction time is an important factor to consider for a person in a driving situation who is required to make decisions. Older people often do not do well in complex situations where reaction time is critical. A problem among older individuals is the beginning of alteration of consciousness for very brief periods of which they are not totally aware. A physical examination or a mental examination evaluates the performance of the individual at that particular time only. An individual's performance may vary from day to day or moment to moment. During the early stages, Alzheimer's disease may be difficult to identify. However, it is during this time that individuals are most likely to be driving. The symptoms which the disease manifests, though not apparent during a physical examination, may affect an individual's driving. Everyone has a variability in their performance. However, because an older person's spare capacity has been eroded, they have less spare capacity to respond to the demands of driving situations. As a result, what may be even a relatively normal variation may put the older person below the minimum that is required to deal with increased demand required to meet emergencies and more demanding driving situations. Further, according to Dr. J. Waller, the physiological changes that affect a person's vision, stamina, and ability to deal with time-bound decision making and response time so as to effect crash rate begins at about age 55. By age 65, the increased crash risk of all drivers is significant enough to cause concern about people this age performing a special driving task such as driving a school bus. Dr. J. Waller believes that health-related criteria used in a physical examination lack the precise, predictable cutoff points to distinguish between those older drivers who should be permitted to drive and those who should not be permitted to drive. In areas where special licensing procedures are used to license older drivers, there is still the same increased crash risk for older drivers. It is Dr. J. Waller's opinion that as people grow older they have more crashes per unit of miles driven and turn out to be responsible for those crashes more frequently. It is Dr. J. Waller's opinion that it is reasonable for the Department to set an age limit for school bus drivers and that such an age should not be much past the age of about 65. He bases this opinion on his experience in working with departments of motor vehicles through the years. It is also Dr. J. Waller's opinion that the problem of physical impairment and driving and crash risk is too inexact to permit appropriate identifying criteria for those drivers who should not be permitted to drive. Dr. J. Waller served on a committee of the American Medical Association that attempted to put together an appropriate set of identifying criteria and the doctors were unable to agree. According to Dr. Waller, this lack of agreement reflects basically a lack of progress in the predictive capabilities of physical examination that has existed since 1927. Dr. J. Waller feels that the Folstein mini-mental examination cannot identify early Alzheimer's disease. It is Dr. J. Waller's further opinion that physical examinations do not reveal subtle degradation and reduced capacity in individuals. Dr. J. Waller believes that subtle degradation changes cannot be measured, but have individual components which may be testable under certain circumstances. However, the way they all relate to each other has never been tested. It is his opinion that the way we know that they exist, since they cannot be tested, is because we see what is the end result. Dr. J. Waller presented a bar graph, marked as Respondent's Exhibit K, which he relied on for his opinion that the relationship between age and accident risk is approaching an exponential relationship. That graph and the opinion based on it are unreliable. The graph is not statistically accurate, is visually deceptive as drawn, and is an unsubstantiated data analysis. Marc G. Gertz, Ph.D., is a professor at Florida State University and president of Research Network, an independent data analysis, survey, research methodology and political polling firm. As part of his duties at F.S.U., Dr. Gertz teaches many of the graduate courses in research methodology and statistics as well as having been chairman of and serving on the Ph.D. Methods Comprehensive Examination Committee for the previous eleven years. Dr. Gertz was employed by FEA/United to conduct an analysis of school bus drivers and accident rates in the State of Florida. In collecting data for this project, Dr. Gertz was not able to find any previous study ever done in Florida on school bus drivers and accident rates. This project entailed the collection of three sets of data. One set of data was obtained from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DMV). The second set of data was obtained from the Department of Education (DOE) and the third set of data was a complete enumeration (as opposed to a random sample) obtained from individual counties, specifically Dade, Pinellas, Okaloosa and Hendry. Dr. Gertz performed a number of statistical analyses on the data collected and compiled it into a report. Dr. Gertz pointed out that this is an original collection of data as opposed to a summary of data from the agencies in question that have control of the data. This data is known as primary data which is data you collect yourself as opposed to secondary data, which is someone else's data used to do your analysis. The problem with secondary data, according to Dr. Gertz, is you don't know what went into their choice of variables, their choice of case, how they operationalized, how they defined the terms or how they manipulated the data. An example of one piece of primary or "raw" data that was collected by Dr. Gertz for this study is the individual accident reports on file with the DMV. The DMV data was compared for years 1984 and 1985 for each of the different variables, for example, the number of injuries or the number of fatalities was compared with age to obtain both simple correlations and age as a curvilinear function. Based on his research, Dr. Gertz found from the DMV data that age had no statistically significant correlation with accidents of school bus drivers in Florida. Dr. Gertz explained the negative numbers of page 1 of his report as negative correlations which indicate that younger drivers are more likely to have accidents, although he was not comfortable saying that the correlation was statistically significant. Dr. Gertz pointed out that in his examination of the DMV data, what is called an accident may not be what all of us would call an accident. For example, if you knock over a tree limb or if the bus mirror is damaged, this could result in an accident report being filed with the DMV. In the bottom half of page 1 of his report, age was squared to give more weight to the younger and older people to see if age was a curvilinear function of these variables, but this analysis did not change the statistical results. Dr. Gertz performed more sophisticated analyses on the data sets he collected such as regression analysis and discrimination function analysis, but could still not explain the variation in accidents with any of the variables tested to correlate age with any of those variables. The second set of data was obtained from the DOE for the years 1986 and 1987. The results of Dr. Gertz's analyses are found on page 2 of his report. This data revealed three significant relationships, although in Dr. Gertz's opinion the significance was at a very, very low level. The statistical significance found by Dr. Gertz is .05 which means that 95 times out of 100 times it would not be happening at random. These three significant relationship are (a) in 1986 younger drivers were more likely to have had prior accidents; (b) in 1987 the younger drivers were most statistically likely to have been charged in the accident; and (c) in 1986 bus drivers who did have in-service training were less likely to have had accidents. For (c) the statistical significance is .01. On page 3 of his report, age was cited as a percentage for the years 1984-1987 using both the DMV data and the DOE data. Dr. Gertz explained this data in terms of the "n" sizes. The "n" size means the sample size. The rule of thumb, according to Dr. Gertz, is that you don't analyze columns that have less than 25 cases in the sample. In the data provided, however, some sample sizes were smaller than 25 which skews the percentage. The closest comparison in this data is in the 1984 Department of Motor Vehicle Data in which a sample size of 18-24 year olds contained 24 cases. The analysis revealed that for all accidents, the percentage where the driver was not charged is 72 percent for 18- 24 year olds and 87 percent in the 65 and older group. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 4 and 5 (Gertz's report) contains the data from the third data set. This data was collected directly from the counties and contains a complete enumeration and includes all school bus drivers, those who did not have accidents as well as those who did have accidents. Based on all the data and his analyses, it was Dr. Gertz's opinion that age did not explain why accidents occurred among school bus drivers in the State of Florida. There is no statistically significant correlation between increased age of public school bus drivers and increased accident risk. In fact, the only slight correlation is between younger drivers and increased accident risk. His conclusion is that, based on the current Florida data, age is no factor in accident risk for public school bus drivers. His opinions are accepted as most creditable because they are based on current Florida data regarding school bus drivers. Individual Medical Testing Dr. Sue H. Schler is a medical doctor and holds a Master's degree in public health and biostatistics and epidemiology. Dr. Schler is an expert in the field of geriatric medicine. Dr. Schler passed the first subspeciality certification examination in geriatric medicine ever offered, making geriatric medicine officially a subspeciality of internal medicine as of 1988. Dr. Schler teaches medical students at the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Dr. Schler believes that the average physician in Florida could easily be trained to conduct a physical examination (including a neurological exam) on a school bus driver that would take about half an hour to perform which would screen out the safe from the unsafe driver of any age. Dr. Schler explained the principle of heteroschistosity. The principle of heteroschistosity means that there is an increasing variability between individuals of increasing age as for as their physical health and their functional capacity. In light of this principle, medical examinations are increasingly likely to detect medical impairments of both a pathological and a normative nature as individuals increase in age. In Dr. Schler's opinion, functional assessment is the most appropriate method of testing individuals to determine physical and mental capabilities. Functional assessment is one of the big trends in geriatric medicine and in the past few years has been proven to have predictive value for morbidity and mortality. Dr. Schler examined ESE Form No. 479, which is the application for a license to drive a school bus, and found it to be grossly inadequate to safely screen a driver of any age. Florida's physical examination for school bus drivers could be substantially improved by assuring the quality and competence of the physician and his familiarity with the particular procedures used, and by adding more "hands-on" procedures. The current examination form requires only that "vital signs" be taken and a basic "20/20" vision test be performed, and then asks the physician to answer 12 questions "yes" or "no" with a "brief explanation" for any "no" answer. The physician's certification was recently amended to include the limiting language "on that date" regarding the school bus driver's condition. Dr. Schler believes Florida's screening procedure could be made adequate for school bus drivers if certain additional tests and procedures were added to the current form. Dr. Schler specifically mentioned a better medical history, a better physical examination, including a complete neurological exam, and a mental status examination such as the Folstein Mini Mental Status Test, and additional testing of vision and hearing, including measuring static and dynamic visual acuity, night vision, response to glare, color vision, visual fields and depth perception. She also believes that a more extensive history of the use of medications and alcohol should be included. According to Dr. Schler, the more comprehensive testing would not be difficult and would not require expensive equipment. The additional equipment required for more precise vision testing could be found at most optometrist's offices in addition to the equipment normally found in a doctor's office. Further, these tests can be effectively and inexpensively accomplished through cooperative arrangements with established vision-related companies like Pearle Vision Center. Dr. Schler makes the clear distinction between the abilities of a healthy individual as opposed to a sick person of any age. An example she gave is that cardiac sudden death is estimated to occur in thirty percent of all people who have heart disease. Forty-year old men or women who have heart attacks have a thirty percent rate of sudden death, the same as with an eighty year old man or woman. Chronic heart disease can be easily diagnosed with a physical examination, according to Dr. Schler. Dr. Schler believes that vascular disease could be screened to eliminate the risk of strokes. Dr. Schler also states that a lot of vascular disease is asymptomatic for the first twenty to thirty years but can be identified with testing. In Dr. Schler's opinion the standard confidence rate, with which you predict accuracy in the kinds of physical examinations which she described, is approximately ninety-five percent, i.e., a person's capabilities can be predicted with ninety-five percent accuracy from the examinations given by Dr. Schler and her colleagues. In Dr. Schler's practice she finds that she screens out a person as unsafe to drive prior to the DMV doing so through their driver license retesting program. Dr. Schler stated that the application for a license to drive a school bus, although she feels it is inadequate to test school bus drivers, is still much more comprehensive than the driver licensing and retesting given for a regular drivers license. In Dr. Schler's opinion, the written statements by Dr. Julian Waller, M.D., stating that physical changes take place in people that are unmeasurable was the state of medicine ten or twenty years ago. Currently, in Dr. Schler's opinion, medical doctors are very good at screening out even subtle changes of illness and aging especially as related to driving ability. Dr. Schler clearly believes that in healthy older drivers, who have the benefit of experience in driving a school bus, experience has been proven to be a major benefit in terms of safety. According to Dr. Schler, age should only be used as an added safety factor if there were no other way of safely and effectively testing school bus drivers. In her opinion, however, the State of Florida can today efficiently, cheaply and accurately test these drivers annually to determine which drivers are safe and which drivers are not. Dr. Schler's testimony and opinions are taken as creditable and are accepted instead of the opinions of Dr. J. Waller. Dr. J. Waller's opinions and information are out of date and out of step with the current state of the art in geriatrics. Individual Performance Testing, Training and Evaluation Harvey Leonard Sterns, Ph.D., currently holds three titles: 1) research professor of psychology at the University of Akron, Ohio, 2) Director, Institute for Life-Span Development and the Gerontology Fellow at the University of Akron, and 3) research professor of gerontology at Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine. Dr. Sterns is an expert in the field of industrial gerontology. Dr. Sterns has conducted research on driving as it relates to aging. The research conducted was keyed to the development of a diagnostic battery of tests to determine areas in which older drivers may have difficulty and to assist them with the training program so that they may perform at higher levels. This research also included an individual training approach which was modified in subsequent years in an attempt to attain maximum efficiency. As a foundation for his research, Dr. Sterns identified three issues of observable approaches to the driving analysis which are called intrinsic predictors. These are 1) perceptual style, i.e., how people extract relevant and irrelevant information from the visual array; 2) selective attention, i.e., a measure of central processing ability that is highly predictive of incident involvement; and 3) perceptual motor reaction, i.e., dealing with simple and complex choices in complex reactions. Dr. Sterns also researched the actual driving of a school bus in Alabama. In this research he examined the job of school bus driver from a task analysis perspective and observed first hand what was actually involved in driving the school bus. Based on this experience Dr. Sterns believes that driving a school bus on a specified route is different than normal everyday driving because, for example, the school bus driver is clearly aware of problem situations coming up such as demanding intersections or curves or other areas of potential danger. Dr. Sterns points out that school bus accidents are reported any time anything happens to the bus, including a bus getting stuck in the mud, scratched, or backed into a pole or into another bus. This is described in the literature as an "accident or a crash." The majority of accidents that we know about are property damage as opposed to accidents involving injury or fatalities. Dr. Sterns stated that Dr. Julian Waller in his book Injury Events states that school bus safety is not a major safety problem because out of approximately twenty million children who are transported by school busy every year there are twenty fatalities. School bus transportation may well be the safest form of transportation there is. Dr. Sterns cites numerous authorities and studies done both in the United States and Europe which support his opinion that experience is a critical factor in the ability to safely drive a school bus. Competency and skills involved in driving a school bus could be greatly enhanced by additional supervised on-the-road training experience together with training evaluations as opposed to using the age as criterion. The job of driving a school bus involves much more than just driving. Dr. Sterns cites the Iowa 1986 data which contained eighteen fatalities and of those, three fatalities were actually on the bus. Therefore he believes that a check ride with passengers actually on the bus is an important part of the observation of the performance level of the school bus driver. According to Dr. Sterns, the addition of the intrinsic performance evaluators which have relative predictive validity, such as selective attention, perceptual style and motor reaction time, together with enhanced training and on board evaluation of school bus drivers, is far superior to determining who a good employee performer might be as opposed to the use of any arbitrary chronological age. It is Dr. Sterns' opinion that if it were necessary to be very conservative in the setting of standards for school bus drivers, one commonly used technique in industrial psychology is that of using the median of the young group. That is, taking the younger group of employees and determining their median standard of performance and using that median as the cut off score for any older person with the result that any older person performing below that median cutoff score would not be allowed to drive a school bus. In metro transit authorities (public transportation), a method used to judge performance is to have a "checker" ride the bus as a passenger or follow in a car to see whether or not the bus driver is performing appropriately. This method would be of practical use in training school bus drivers as well. Past driving record is predictive of future accident risk. In a study of commercial drivers, performance training was demonstrated, with statistical significance, to reduce accident risk by approximately 16 percent. Performance evaluation can appropriately exclude young drivers who have functional problems related to drug or alcohol use or neurological deficits. Performance training has been developed and demonstrated to be effective at improving the performance level of both older and younger adult drivers. Performance evaluation through "on board" check rides, a "follow car" procedure, or closely "monitoring" drivers can reduce accident risk, especially when such evaluation is based upon an accurate task analysis. The 1969 Promisel Study as discussed by Dr. Sterns also relates the benefit of experience even for drivers who began to drive a school bus in their sixties, because even these drivers show an improvement in their driving ability with training and experience. The study also states on page 90 that there is no evidence to show that the severity of an accident is related to driver age and further that more than half or 50-60 percent of the difference that occurs in accident rate can be predicted only by factors other than age. Performance evaluation over a period of several days, as occurs in Florida's public school bus driver licensing process, is more reliable in determining driver capability than the single-incidence licensing which is typical of the private, noncommercial licensing process.
The Issue The issue is whether Zelma Goss should be dismissed from her position as a school bus driver for the St. Johns County School Board for the reasons stated in the Formal Petition of Charges.
Findings Of Fact Zelma Goss has been employed as a bus driver by the School Board of St. Johns County since November 1975. During that time, she has had an unblemished record of performance as a bus driver. At about 3:15 p.m. on August 27, 1990, Ms. Goss was completing her afternoon bus route when she heard Debra Sapp call for help over the radio. Ms. Sapp ordinarily does not drive a bus because she was the Route Specialist. On this day, the first day of school, Ms. Sapp had to pick up a bus load of students who had been returned to Ketterlinus Middle School because of severe misbehavior on the bus. Ms. Sapp had to stop the bus one time to separate two boys. A few minutes later the bigger boy returned to the front of the bus and began beating the smaller boy with his fists. Ms. Sapp stopped the bus and tried to stop the fight. She was unable to separate the boys, and as the beating continued she radioed for help and requested assistance from the Sheriff's Department. A couple of minutes later she again radioed for help. After there was no response from other drivers, Ms. Goss contacted Ms. Sapp and asked if she could help. After she finished her route, Ms. Goss went to the location of Ms. Sapp's bus and noticed that there were a number of school administrators and law enforcement officers present and that the students on Ms. Sapp's bus were hanging out the windows, yelling obscenities and otherwise acting completely out of control. Ms. Goss, who was familiar with these students because she had transported them during previous years, got on the bus and attempted to gain control of the students' behavior. She succeeded in calming all of the students down except Joe Bailey, who refused her directions and would not come to the front of the bus to sit. Joe Bailey was removed from the bus by a Deputy Sheriff and instructed to behave. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Ms. Sapp said that she believed that they could proceed to transport the students home and Ms. Goss volunteered to drive. Ms. Sapp went back and sat toward the back of the bus. Joe Bailey was put back on the bus by a Deputy Sheriff and instructed to behave. Ms. Goss had had problems with several of the students on the bus in the past, particularly with Joe Bailey. Ms. Goss' reporting of Bailey's misconduct had resulted in his being suspended from school in the past. The bus route continued uneventfully until Ms. Goss reached the corner of D and 5th Street, at which point the students began to stand up and holler when they saw a brown pickup truck nearby. The truck was driven by a former student, Jason Schofield, who had been a troublemaker. At this point in time, the bus was stopped at the stop Joe Bailey normally exited. Because she was keeping her eye on Mr. Schofield's truck, Ms. Goss did not notice as she pulled away from that stop that Joe Bailey had not gotten off. While she was discussing this matter with Ms. Sapp and stating that Mr. Bailey could get off at the next stop, Ms. Goss noticed Mr. Schofield's truck pulling in behind the bus, tires squealing, having come out so fast that he cut off a white car following the bus. At the next stop, Ms. Goss and Ms. Sapp told Joe Bailey several times to get off the bus. As Mr. Bailey finally moved to leave the bus, he called Ms. Goss a bitch, struck Ms. Goss firmly in the back of the head, and quickly ran off the bus. As she was struck, Ms. Goss instinctively threw up her hands in protection and noticed Bailey making obscene gestures at her and calling her names. Bailey walked in front of the bus, across the road and, standing on the left edge of the road, continued to make obscene gestures and comments at Ms. Goss and dropped his pants, "mooning" her. As she started the bus moving forward, Ms. Goss turned the steering wheel quickly to the left and then immediately back to the right in an instinctive reaction to get Bailey's attention. This movement of the steering wheel lasted approximately two seconds. At the same time, Ms. Goss was yelling out of the window to Bailey that she intended to press charges against him. Ms. Sapp described the motion of the bus by saying, "it went forward very wiggly." The bus quickly crossed the middle line by eight to ten inches and returned to the right lane. Ms. Goss did not steer the bus at Bailey, nor did she intend to strike him with the bus. Furthermore, the bus never came anywhere near hitting Bailey and did not pose any real danger to him. As Ms. Goss was continuing to the next stop, Ms. Sapp began screaming in the back of the bus, "Don't stop." Ms. Goss stopped the bus at the next stop anyway and, as she opened the door, Jason Schofield came up to the driver's window on the left hand side of the bus and began beating on the side of the bus. Schofield said to her, "Lady, what is your problem?" Ms. Goss stated that she did not have a problem and did not say anything else to him. Mr. Schofield returned to his truck and pulled out around the bus, speeding through the stop signal before all of the students had completely crossed the road in front of the bus. Ms. Goss completed the bus run and returned to where she had left her bus. In discussing the situation with representatives of the administration, Ms. Goss admitted swerving the bus, but she did not state that she had swerved the bus at Bailey or in an effort to strike Bailey. For his actions that day, Joe Bailey was expelled for the entire school year. Two students and a passenger in Schofield's truck told their versions of what occurred that day. All three were simply unbelievable and their stories were entirely lacking in credibility. Their testimony is rejected. The passenger's story is impossible and clearly false. The only two people actually on that bus who were credible witnesses were Ms. Goss and Ms. Sapp. Neither testified that Ms. Goss actually swerved the bus at Joe Bailey in any manner which placed him in any danger. St. Johns County School Baord Rule 6Gx 55-8.06 provides: Responsibilities of School Bus Driver It shall be the responsibility of the school bus driver under the regulations of the School Board to perform all duties as follows: (11) Relationship to other personnel (c) Pupils (1) The bus driver shall be responsible for the safety of the pupils on his bus and shall be constantly on the alert for any condition that would endanger their safety. The primary emphasis of the School Board's policy on transportation of students is ensuring the safety of the students. A bus driver's primary responsibility is to maintain the safety of the students.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of St. Johns County enter a Final Order exonerating Zelma Goss from the alleged misconduct and immediately reinstating her to her position as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 28th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5887 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, School Board of St. Johns County Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 3(1); 4-6(24-26); 8(2); and 11(21). Proposed findings of fact 7, 9, 10, 12-16, 23-28, and 32 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 1, 2 and 29 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, 20-22, and 30 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 19 and 31 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Zelma Goss 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2&5); and 3-17(6-20). COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. Grogan Timothy B. Strong Attorneys at Law 2065 Herschel Street Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, FL 32203 Thomas W. Brooks Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Otis A. Mason, Superintendent St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, FL 32084 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
