The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County (School Board) should accept the Petitioner's recision of her resignation from her position as a high school teacher and reinstate her to her former position on the ground that her resignation was given under legal duress.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992/1993 school year, the Petitioner, Deborah Green, taught high school in the GOALS (drop-out prevention) program at Dixie Hollins High School. In January, 1993, she applied for a year of medical leave of absence due to stress and stress-related symptoms. The School Board approved leave starting January 27, through June 11, 1993. Shortly after going on medical leave, the Petitioner was notified that a student had made serious accusations against her. One of the accusations was that the Petitioner freely told the student details about her romantic relationship with a Michael Miller, who was married and the principal of another Pinellas County high school. She contacted the student to find out what the accusations were and met with her principal and the student and his mother to discuss the accusation. At the meeting, the student recanted. The Petitioner left for Dallas, Texas, shortly after her leave began, but she continued to receive telephone messages locally through her friend and former housemate. Not long after the Petitioner left for Dallas, the student who had accused her, and then recanted, again accused the Respondent, alleging that he had recanted because the Petitioner had asked him to lie for her. When this happened, the principal of Dixie Hollins referred the matter to Stephen Crosby, Director of Personnel Services for the Pinellas County Schools. Crosby called the Petitioner at her local telephone number and left a message. When the Petitioner returned the call from Dallas, Crosby explained that he was investigating serious charges that had been made against her and that, as always in such circumstances, it was important for him to meet with her about them as soon as possible. The Petitioner declined, stating that she was not emotionally, mentally, or physically prepared at the time to handle the situation or the stress of the situation. She insisted that her meeting with Crosby be postponed. As an accommodation to the Petitioner, Crosby agreed to postpone the meeting, and the two agreed to meet on March 1, 1993. On or about February 28, 1993, on a return trip to Pinellas County, the Petitioner visited her school and left a written message for Crosby to tell him that she still was unable to meet with him and would not attend the scheduled March 1, 1993, meeting. Crosby did not get the message until the morning of the scheduled meeting. On receipt of the message, Crosby turned to the School Board's legal office for advice on how to proceed. Based on the advice of counsel, Crosby sent the Petitioner a letter stating that he viewed the delay in the interview until March 1 to be an unusual accommodation, since teacher interviews normally are conducted as soon as he becomes aware of the charges. He wrote that, since the Petitioner would not meet on March 1, as they had agreed, he would have to proceed exclusively on the basis of his interviews of students and others. In accordance with normal procedures, he also advised her that, unless she chose to resign by March 12, 1993, he would be recommending to the School Superintendent that he recommend to the School Board that the Petitioner be dismissed. On March 3, 1993, the Petitioner received Crosby's March 1 letter and wrote back in response to offer her resignation, effective June 11, 1993. In the Petitioner's own written words, she resigned "for my personal sanity and for the credibility of Michael Miller." Crosby processed the Petitioner's resignation to be considered at the March 24, 1993, School Board meeting. It is standard operating procedure to process resignations before their effective dates, if possible, so that replacement personnel can be hired. The School Board accepted the Petitioner's resignation (among others) at its March 24, 1993, meeting. The Petitioner tried unsuccessfully several times after March 24, 1993, to contact Crosby by telephone to rescind her resignation. She was unable to speak to him but was told that the School Board already had accepted her resignation and that it was too late to rescind it. In April, 1993, the Petitioner learned that the Florida Education Practices Commission of the Florida Department of Education also was investigating the allegations against her, notwithstanding her resignation. On or about June 3, 1993, the Petitioner returned to Pinellas County and met with a lawyer about getting her teaching position back and about defending her teacher certificate. On June 8, 1993, the lawyer wrote a letter to the School Board Attorney (which was received on or before June 11, 1993) purporting to rescind the Petitioner's resignation. It was not proven that the Petitioner had no choice but to resign from her position as a teacher between March 1 and March 12, 1993, due to her emotional, mental and physical condition at the time. As a result of her long-standing membership in the local teachers' union, the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA), the Petitioner knew that dues-paying members of the PCTA may be entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge, in a teacher dismissal proceeding. She claimed that she did not know she still was entitled to free legal counsel after going on medical leave of absence as of January 27, 1993, and ceasing to pay union dues while on leave. However, there was no evidence that she inquired as to the availability of paid counsel until after the effective date of her resignation. Had she done so in a timely fashion, she would have learned before her resignation was accepted that she was entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 16th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6074 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Third sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that she spoke to Crosby more than once. Explaining the discrepancies between her testimony and his is problematic. But some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby would have been on weekends (e.g., January 16 and 23, 1993), giving rise to a question as to the accuracy of her testimony. In addition, the Petitioner's own evidence suggested that her condition during this time period impaired her thought process and memory. Perhaps the Petitioner is counting unsuccessful attempts to contact Crosby as actual conversations with him. Rejected as not proven that the Petitioner acted on the advice of her physician in cancelling the March 1, 1993, meeting with Crosby. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, rejected as not proven that she resigned "under protest because of her inability to participate in the investigation due to her medical condition"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. See 7., above. (Some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby during this time period would have been during the spring school holidays when all school offices were closed.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected in part as not proven as to "rational decisions with respect to her employment"; otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 23.-26. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As to 25., the referee appeared to be referring to Green's medical leave of absence.) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Pinellas County Schools Administration Building 301 Fourth Street SW Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street SW Largo, Florida 34640-3536 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Did the Hendry County School Board (Board) have just cause to terminate Respondent from her employment as a paraprofessional teacher's aide?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the HCSD as a paraprofessional teacher's aide at LMS. The employment relationship between the Board and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 8, Section 8.013, Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides that "when an employee has completed three (3) years of the past five (5) with satisfactory service with the Hendry County School Board . . . and has been appointed for a subsequent year, he [sic] will be eligible for continued employment status, which status will continue year to year unless the Board terminates the employee for just cause (Emphasis furnished). Respondent was first employed with the HCSD on August 18, 1986, and worked continuously through May 25, 1999, when she was terminated. Since Respondent achieved "continued employment status," she can only be terminated for "just cause." The Board terminated Respondent for "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner" and "other sufficient cause" under School Board Policies and Procedures 218. There were no written evaluations of Respondent's performance accomplished during the first 9 years of Respondent's employment with the HCSD because the Board did not adopt its current policy until approximately 1996. However, there is no evidence that Respondent's work performance was unsatisfactory during the first 9 years of her employment with the HCSD. Respondent worked at LMS for each of those nine years of her employment with the HCSD and was routinely re-appointed for each ensuing year. The first 2 years of her employment, Respondent was assigned to work with students that were classified as "trainable mentally handicapped." Respondent had to assist these students in learning rudimentary skills such as brushing their teeth and changing their underwear. From the fall of 1988 until the spring of 1992, the equivalent of 4 school years, Respondent was assigned to the "Time Out Room." The assignment to the "Time-Out Room" was not punitive in nature, or the result of unsatisfactory work performance by Respondent. Disruptive students that caused a problem in the classroom were sent to the "Time-Out Room." The students went in the "Time-Out Room" for one period after which they usually would return to their regular class. Although Respondent was employed as a "Teacher's Aide" for exceptional education students with special needs she did not assist a teacher, but ran the "Time-Out Room" alone. After 4 years working in the "Time-Out Room," Respondent was assigned to Internal Suspension. The "Time-Out Room" was eliminated, and replaced with Internal Suspension. Internal Suspension was used as a form of discipline for students who violated school policy. Students were sent to Internal Suspension anywhere from 2 to 10 days. Internal Suspension was conducted in a double-wide trailer behind LMS. Respondent again was by herself in Internal Suspension and was not assisting a teacher. The first documentation of any performance deficiency by Respondent consists of a Procedure for Improvement form and a Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form, both dated January 22, 1996. The forms were prepared by James C. Allen, Principal of the LMS. The Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent achieved a "satisfactory" designation for 6 areas and a "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The deficiencies specified in the Procedures for Improvement form are: "Harshness in speaking with staff and students, assisting students with academic work, unacceptable activities in classroom, needlepoint, police scanner." The Procedures for Improvement form provided that Respondent had the "95/96 school year" to improve, and that Mr. Allen would "Recommend dismissal" if the deficiencies were not improved. Respondent successfully improved her performance. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote a letter to Respondent's union representative, with a copy to Respondent, stating that "I too am optimistic that improvement has occurred." On April 1, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote directly to Respondent expressing concern about "complaints/concerns" received about her conduct on a Beta Club trip to Washington, D.C., but stating, in pertinent part: These concerns cannot be overlooked, however, since we initiated procedures for improvement January 22, 1996, which dealt specifically with harshness in speaking with students/staff. Improvement has been noted. It must also be pointed out that Ms Dankanich (Beta Club sponsor) and some staff members felt that you did a good job in controlling your students and watching out for their safety and welfare. (Emphasis furnished). The March and April 1996 letters from Mr. Allen were included in Respondent's personnel file. Also included in the personnel file were letters from the Beta Club sponsor for the Washington, D.C. trip and a chaperone. These letters stated that Respondent spoke to students and adults and conducted herself in an appropriate manner throughout the trip. Respondent's annual "Overall Evaluation" for the 1995-1996 school year was "Satisfactory." Mr. Allen checked the box entitled "Reappoint based on employee's willingness to improve job dimensions not satisfactory." Respondent attained a "Satisfactory" score on 6 out of eight areas listed for job dimension with "Quality of Work" and Work Attitude" checked-off for "Needs Improvement." Respondent was reappointed and returned to LMS for the 1996-1997 school year. Respondent was assigned to assist with the "trainable mentally handicapped" students after having been on her own in the "Time-Out Room" and Internal Suspension for 8 years and working with Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students. This assignment required an adjustment for Respondent. On February 11, 1997, Allen presented Respondent with another Procedures for Improvement form and Special Non- Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. As in the preceding year, the Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The Procedures for Improvement form identified deficiencies as "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner, harshness in speaking with students/staff; unacceptable activities in classroom," and afforded Respondent the 96\97 school year to improve or be recommended for dismissal. Respondent wrote on both forms that she did not agree with them. In April 1997, 12 professional colleagues of Respondent wrote letters of support. These letters were included in Respondent's personnel file. The letters vouch for Respondent's professionalism and many stated that Respondent never was observed to engage in improper conduct or exhibit inappropriate speech or tone of voice. Throughout the second semester of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent worked 2 class periods as a teacher's aide for Erin Berg-Hayes. Ms. Berg-Hayes was a sixth grade ESE teacher. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's job performance during the 1996-1997 school year was satisfactory. Respondent did not receive annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year. Since Respondent was not told otherwise, Respondent assumed she had improved her performance to Mr. Allen's satisfaction. Respondent received a letter of appointment at the end of the 1996-1997 school year and was reappointed for the 1997-1998 school year. For the 1997-1998 school year, the sixth grade students at LMS were moved to the Sixth Grade Center (SGC). Jodi Bell assistant principal at LMS was assigned to administer the SGC. Mr. Allen remained as principal at the LMS which consisted of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent worked as Erin Berg-Hayes' full-time aide for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes were assigned to the SGC. Ms. Berg-Hayes characterized Respondent's job performance during the 1997-1998 school year as "good." When Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's annual evaluation, Ms. Berg-Hayes advised Ms. Bell that she was "pleased" with Respondent's performance and "on the overall [Respondent's] performance was good and satisfactory." Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Bell checked off "satisfactory" in the 8 areas designated for assessment. There were no check marks in the "Needs Improvement" column. On the 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Ms. Bell checked the box for "Satisfactory" as Respondent's "Overall Evaluation," and also checked the box for "Reappoint for next year." In the section entitled "Comments by Evaluator," Ms. Bell wrote: "I have appreciated your willingness to go above what is expected and help wherever help is needed. Keep up the good work!" Respondent returned to the SGC as Ms. Berg-Hayes' Aide in the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent worked together for the fall semester after which Respondent requested to be reassigned. Respondent attributed this to a personality clash with Ms. Berg-Hayes that started in July 1998. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's performance declined in the 1998-1999 school year. Cathy Lipford, teacher's aide at SGC, who worked together with Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent for one period during the entire fall semester in the 1998-1999 school year did not observe a problem with Respondent's work performance. This teachers' aide was aware of some tension between Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes. However, this aide testified that Respondent appeared to take the initiative, and assisted students, and the aide never observed Respondent speaking inappropriately to students. Ms. Berg-Hayes did not prepare any documentation of Respondent's alleged performance deficiencies during the fall semester of the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes was not consulted about Respondent's performance by Mr. Allen, the former principal of LMS or Mr. Cooper, the current principal of LMS at the time Respondent's performance was evaluated for the 1998-1999 school year, when it was decided to recommend dismissal of Respondent for failure to perform her assigned duties or other sufficient cause. During the spring semester of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent was assigned as an aide to Dorothy Lomago, a varying exceptionalities teacher for seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent and Ms. Lomago worked together from January 1999 through May 1999. Ms. Lomago had been employed by the Board for 25 years. Prior to Respondent, Ms. Lomago only had had 2 other teaching assistants. Ms. Lomago considers compassion for children and initiative as the most important characteristics for a teacher's aide in special education. Ms. Lomago rated Respondent's performance in those areas as "ineffective." Ms. Lomago considered Respondent adequate in performing clerical tasks such as copying papers and grading papers. Ms. Lomago did not document Respondent's performance deficiencies. Ms. Lomago neither counseled nor corrected Respondent. Likewise, Ms. Lomago never brought to Respondent's attention the things she believed Respondent failed to do or did wrong. Ms. Lomago merely did what she was told to do by Mr. Cooper when he arrived at LMS in March 1999. On March 31, 1999, Respondent went to Mr. Allen's office for her 1998-1999 annual evaluation. R. Scott Cooper, assistant principal, Ms. Jodi Bell, assistant principal, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Davis, assistant principal were present in Mr. Allen's office upon Respondent's arrival. This meeting was terminated after Mr. Allen indicated there was a problem and asked Respondent if she wanted union representation. Respondent replied that she thought it would be wise. Before the meeting on March 31, 1999, Respondent was not aware that her job performance was considered deficient. Respondent had not been told of any deficiencies and had not received any counseling. In March/April 1999, Mr. Allen retired, and was replaced as principal of LMS by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper arrived at LMS some time in the last 2 weeks of March 1999. Respondent and Mr. Cooper had had no professional contact before March 1999. Mr. Cooper met with Respondent on April 16, 1999, for Respondent's 1998-1999 annual evaluation. Mr. Cooper gave Respondent 4 separate Procedures for Improvement forms and an Annual Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. This was Respondent's first notice of her specific performance deficiencies for the 1998-1999 school year. Mr. Cooper never conducted a formal observation of Respondent's job performance. Mr. Cooper based the annual evaluation predominantly on a review of the school board records, and on discussions with Mr. Allen, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Davis. The Procedures for Improvement forms specified the following deficiencies: "Work Attitude - able to successfully work with co-workers and students"; "Initiate Resourcefulness - ability to identify what needs to be done"; ""Dependability"; and "Quality of Work." The forms identified the following means of judging success in overcoming the foregoing deficiencies, respectively. "Supervisors will observe appropriate student/aide interactions in all circumstances"; "decreased necessity for teacher/supervisor to redirect Ms. Bennett's activities"; "Ms. Bennett will demonstrate the ability to effective [sic] facilitate school functions - adhere to work requirements"; and "Higher quality of work - decrease in errors." As a Statement of Assistance Offered, all of the forms provided: "Ms. Bennett may meet with Mr. Cooper weekly to obtain suggestions and assistance" Respondent was given until May 10, 1999, to improve her deficiencies. This was a period of 3 weeks or 15 school days. On Respondent's Annual Non-Instructional Personnel form, Mr. Cooper checked-off 4 out of 8 areas for "Needs Improvement" with "Satisfactory" checked for the remaining 4 areas. Mr. Allen checked "Unsatisfactory" for the "Overall Evaluation" and checked the box "Dismissal." Respondent noted her disagreement with the evaluation. On May 19, 1999, Mr. Cooper formally recommended dismissal of Respondent. Respondent received a Notice of Recommendation of Dismissal on that date. The Board approved Respondent's dismissal on May 25, 1999. During the 3 week period Respondent was given to improve her performance, neither Mr. Cooper nor any other administrator met with Respondent to advise her as to whether she was improving. There is no documentation whatsoever of Respondent's lack of improvement. During the 3 weeks Respondent was to improve her performance, she received repeated assurance from Ms. Lomago that they would be working together the following year. Ms. Lomago never advised Respondent that her performance continued to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, no one from the Board or any school administrator advised Respondent that she was not complying with the Procedures for Improvement or that her work continued to be unsatisfactory. Not hearing otherwise, Respondent considered her work to be satisfactory and did not meet with Mr. Cooper to obtain suggestions and assistance. The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to perform her assigned duties in a satisfactory manner during the 1998-1999 school year or that the Board had just cause or any other sufficient cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board reinstate the employment of Annette Bennett-Edwards and provide for back pay and benefits retroactive to May 25, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 6th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Upthegrove Superintendent Hendry County School District Post Office Box 1980 LaBelle, Florida 33935-1980 Richard G. Groff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Betruff and St. Paul, P.L. Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2989 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
The Issue Whether it was appropriate for Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Curtis Brown, under Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (2007), due to his failure to correct performance deficiencies after having been placed on Professional Services Contract Probation for 90 days, in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t); his "incompetence," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); his "insubordination," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); and his failure to comply with "School Board Policy, State Law or the Appropriate Contractual Agreement," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(x) and Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a math teacher at Johns Hopkins Middle School and has a Professional Services Contract. Petitioner employs a formalized teacher evaluation process that assesses 25 teaching "expectations." These "expectations" are grouped in three related categories: Highest Student Achievement, Safe Learning Environment, and Effective and Efficient Operations. Each "expectation" receives one of four ratings: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, In Progress, and Not Evident. Assessments are made on specific and detailed indicia during observations, interviews, and review of data regarding student achievement. Depending on the number of indicia observed for each of the "expectations," a teacher receives a proficiency rating of Level 1 through 4, with Level 4 being the highest. Below a Level 1 is considered unsatisfactory. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There are approximately 8,000 teachers in Pinellas County. Of the 8,000, 23 were rated unsatisfactory for the 2007-08 school year; only three were rated unsatisfactory for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. A state requirement of teacher appraisal includes student performance and learning gains for each student in a teacher's class. The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT") is probably the most notorious student achievement data source in Florida. Unfortunately, the FCAT scores become available in July. Most annual teacher assessments are completed in April of each school year. However, there are other student achievement data sources that can be appropriately used in assessing student performance and learning gains. They include teacher-made pre- and post-tests, district developed assessments, student grades, and curriculum developed assessments. A teacher may offer any of these data sources during his or her evaluation. Because Respondent had received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2006-07 school year, administrators at his school and from the district office provided special attention and direction during the first months of the 2007-08 school year designed to help Respondent improve his teaching performance. The efforts of the administration were not successful. Respondent was placed on a 90-day probation period on January 14, 2008. He was advised of his unsatisfactory performance. At the same time, he received a revised "success plan" and a copy of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Respondent received several formal observations and critiques during the probation period. Petitioner provided the requisite assistance, direction, and on-going assessment. During the 90-day probationary period, Respondent did not respond to specific corrective direction given him by administrators regarding a myriad of basic administrative details, teaching techniques, and methodology. Respondent's annual evaluation took place on April 24, 2008, after the conclusion of the 90-day probation. Even though requested, Respondent failed to provide any documentation of positive classroom results. Even though Respondent failed to present any evidence of positive classroom results, the evaluator (the school assistant principal) had monitored potential classroom progress through various data available to him. He failed to note any positive trend. Respondent received 19 "Not Evident" ratings in 25 "Expectations" and an unsatisfactory rating. Respondent's performance problems were increasing in spite of a concerted effort by the administration to correct the trend. In the 2005-06 school year, he received six "Not Evident" ratings; in 2006-07, 14 "Not Evident" ratings; and in 2007-2008, 19 "Not Evident" ratings. Over the several years contemplated by the testimony of school administrators who had supervisory authority over Respondent, he failed to teach the subject matter assigned, failed to complete lesson plans correctly and timely, failed to use a particular math teaching software program (River Deep) as required, failed to take attendance, and did not use the required grading software. In each instance he was encouraged and, then specifically directed, to comply with established policy regarding these areas of teaching responsibility; and yet, he failed to do so. Respondent's teaching record contains memos regarding the following: Two formal conferences regarding use of excessive force (12/6/02 and 10/29/03); A formal conference regarding growing number of parent concerns over penalizing students on academic work for behavioral problems and giving students F's for assignments that they couldn't complete due to lost work books (11/3/2004); A formal conference summary involving several issues including instructional methodology, leaving students unsupervised in class and leaving campus early (1/24/2005); Three reprimands for disparaging remarks made to or about students (1/19/05, 2/16/05, 4/02/07); A 15-day suspension for falling asleep in class and again leaving students unattended in class (7/12/2005); A formal conference summary for again leaving students unattended in the classroom and unsupervised outside of the classroom door (2/9/2007); and A formal conference summaries for missing a meeting and not turning in lesson plans and IPDP's (12/04/07, 1/29/08, 3/03/08).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Curtis Brown's, Professional Services Contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 23rd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Julie M. Janssen Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment by the Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Hodgson was employed by the School Board as a custodian. She has been so employed since 1981. In 1999, Hodgson became deficient in the most basic element of a custodian's job--the duty to show up for work at her assigned school, in this case Miami Park Elementary (Miami Park). By July 1, 1999, Hodgson had accumulated ten unauthorized absences, enough to draw the attention of Principal Henry N. Crawford, Jr. (Crawford), and enough, standing alone, to justify termination under Petitioner's contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) the bargaining unit to which Hodgson belongs. At this time Crawford did not seek to terminate Hodgson's employment, although he could have. Instead, he counseled her regarding the School Board's reasonable and lawful requirement that she, like all employees, had the responsibility to inform the school's administration in advance of an absence, or as soon as practicable in an emergency. Nevertheless, on July 30, 1999, Hodgson left work at 6:46 p.m. instead of at the end of her shift at 11:30 p.m. Her area of the building was not cleaned properly and she was docked one half day's pay. For a considerable time after that incident, Hodgson's attendance improved. But in March 2000, her attendance again became a problem. Hodgson was absent 13 times between March 3 and March 20. Crawford again attempted to work with Hodgson, authorizing six of those absences. At the same time, he informed her of the obvious: that this level of absenteeism impeded the effective operation of the worksite. Crawford encouraged Hodgson to consider taking advantage of the School Board's generous leave-of-absence policy in order to preserve her good standing at work while taking the time necessary to deal with the issues which were causing her to miss work. Respondent neither replied to Crawford's proposal that she consider a leave of absence nor improved upon her by now sporadic attendance. Thereafter, Crawford requested assistance from OPS. On April 11, 2000, OPS wrote to advise Hodgson that she was absent without authority and that her absences were deemed abandonment of position. She was directed to provide written notification to OPS to review her situation or her employment would be terminated by the School Board. For a short time, Hodgson took this threat seriously enough to improve her attendance, but by now Crawford had a much shorter fuse with respect to Hodgson's disregard for workplace policies regarding attendance. When, on May 11, 2000, Respondent was an hour and a half late to work, Crawford sent her a memorandum the next day, again reminding her that she must report to work on time and that she was to report any absences or tardiness to school administration in a timely manner. Crawford wrote two additional warning memos to Hodgson in June 2000, but was unsuccessful in persuading her to improve her attendance or to discuss her situation, including the advisability of a leave of absence, in a forthright manner. Finally, Crawford directed Respondent to attend a disciplinary conference known as a Conference for the Record (CFR) on July 3, 2000, to discuss her absenteeism. At the CFR, Crawford again gave Respondent face-to-face directives to be present at work and when absences were unavoidable, to call the school in a timely manner. Two additional formal disciplinary conferences were held between the July 3 CFR and Respondent's termination. Crawford, having been unsuccessful in his efforts to generate honest communication with Hodgson about why a 20-year employee had stopped fulfilling her most basic job requirement, attempted to refer her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). EAP offers employees assistance in resolving personal problems in a manner which allows the employee to also fulfill work obligations. If such accommodations cannot be made, EAP counselors assist in helping the employee separate from his employment in a manner which does not blemish his resume. Supervisors such as Crawford may make referrals to the EAP whenever they feel an employee can and should be helped, and EAP services are also available for the asking to any School Board employee who wishes to take advantage of those services. No one is required to use EAP services, and Hodgson declined to do so. Hodgson's by now chronic absenteeism persisted. Her colleagues on the custodial staff tried, some more graciously than others, to cover her assigned duties, but Crawford was fielding an increasing number of complaints from teachers regarding their classrooms not being serviced. Morale among custodians declined in the face of the administration's seeming inability to control Hodgson. During the last two years of Hodgson's employment, she had 175 unauthorized absences. Eighty-one of those occurred in the last 12 months prior to her termination. By way of defense, Hodgson said that she developed diabetes in the past three years and that most of her absences were medically necessary. She offered voluminous stacks of paper which she claims document legitimate medical problems which made it impossible for her to work. Additional exhibits relate to a young relative she felt obligated to drive to medical appointments during her work hours. These exhibits prove little, if anything. Individually and collectively they are neither self-authenticating nor self-explanatory, and many had not been previously provided to Crawford in connection with her failure to appear for work, nor disclosed to the School Board in compliance with the pre-hearing order in this case. But even if these documents had been properly authenticated and would have in fact justified an extended medical and/or family hardship leave of absence, the evidence fails to establish that they were tendered to Crawford at the time Hodgson was absent. Hodgson did not seek medical or disability leave, either individually or through her collective bargaining unit. Hodgson offered no testimony to contradict the School Board's evidence regarding the dozens of occasions on which she failed to show up for work. Neither did she offer any evidence that her repeated failure to comply with attendance policies was justified due to any misconduct on the part of any of Petitioner's employees. At all times material to this case, the School Board was in compliance with applicable statutory and contractual provisions concerning employee discipline and termination with respect to Hodgson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 14th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice E. Hodgson 14020 Northeast 3rd Court, No. 5 North Miami, Florida 33161 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of a handicap or disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner became employed on an annual non-renewing contract as a paraprofessional at Park Elementary School during the 1993-94 school year. The Petitioner was assigned to work in a classroom program for developmentally disabled preschool children. The children were three to four years of age and very active. There were between five to nine children in the classroom. The Petitioner was generally assigned to work with two children and was responsible for monitoring their activity. She was also responsible for physically controlling the children and changing diapers when required. The substantial part of the workday was spent standing, bending, lifting, and moving about with the children. The Petitioner continued her employment in the 1994-95 school year and received satisfactory evaluations. During the 1995-96 school year, the Petitioner continued her employment as a paraprofessional. Although there is evidence that the Petitioner's job performance was of some concern to the class teacher and to the school principal, the Petitioner was not formally evaluated because her employment was interrupted as set forth herein. There is no evidence that anyone discussed the concerns with her or that she had an opportunity to remedy any alleged deficit in her job performance. On January 2, 1996, the Petitioner was riding in a car being driven by her husband and was involved in an automobile accident when another driver struck the Petitioner's car. The Petitioner was injured in the accident and was taken to a hospital where she was treated and released. Subsequent to the accident, the Petitioner continued to have pain in her neck and sought treatment from a chiropractor. Eventually, the chiropractor referred the Petitioner to a neurologist in an attempt to determine the cause of the pain. The medical professionals determined that the Petitioner's injuries were not permanent. The Petitioner's chiropractor described the pain as a "typical soft tissue injury" and eventually stopped treating the pain because the pain did not improve and was not supported by diagnostic testing. The Petitioner's neurologist opined that the neck pain was not a "disability." The Petitioner returned to the school on February 14, 1996, and discussed her physical limitations with the school principal. She showed the principal a copy of a letter from her chiropractor to an insurer that stated that she was "able to work in a limited capacity . . . with a 15 pound limit" and that "she is to avoid excessive bending, stooping and standing." The Petitioner asserts that the school principal told her to go home and return a week later. The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner informed the Principal that she could do the job but only under the restrictions set forth in the chiropractor's letter. The evidence establishes that the discussion related to whether or not the Petitioner was able to return to work was centered on her ability to perform her responsibilities and that the Petitioner decided she was unable to return to work at that time and would return a week later. By letter dated February 15, 1996, the School Board's personnel coordinator advised the Petitioner that she had used all of her sick leave and would not receive any additional pay until she returned to work. The letter suggested that she request an official leave of absence effective January 2, 1996, in order to permit her retirement benefits to be maintained because "time spent on an official leave of absence can be bought back by the employee from the Division of Retirement." On February 21, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and informed him she would be unable to return on that day due to family matters. On February 22, 1996, the Petitioner returned to the campus and spoke with the principal. The Petitioner told the principal she did not feel physically capable of working as a paraprofessional in the preschool classroom and asked him to provide her with other employment. The principal told the Respondent he did not have any open positions at the school for which she would be physically suited. The principal was also concerned that because the Respondent was physically restricted from bending, stooping, and standing for an extended time, she would not be able to perform the responsibilities of her employment. There is no evidence that on February 22, 1996, or at any time during the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, there were jobs available at the school that did not require physical activity beyond the Petitioner's abilities. On February 26, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and said she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator. The principal believed there was a misunderstanding about the availability of the leave of absence to an annual contract employee and suggested that she speak to the personnel coordinator. The principal also called the coordinator and requested that he clarify the matter with the Petitioner. On February 27, 1996, the personnel coordinator telephoned the school principal and said that the Petitioner had been informed that she was not eligible for a leave of absence and said that the Petitioner had suggested she would resign her employment. On March 1, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the principal and said she wanted to apply for a leave of absence. The principal contacted the personnel coordinator who suggested that the Petitioner submit to the school superintendent a letter requesting the leave along with a copy of the chiropractor's letter and then let the superintendent decide whether or not he would recommend to the school board that her leave request be granted. The information was relayed to the Petitioner, who stated that she would submit the letter. By letter dated March 7, 1996, the Petitioner relayed the events to the superintendent and requested "any consideration you can give in resolving this matter." In the March 7 letter, the Petitioner writes, "[d]ue to the activeness of the children in this class the possibility of re-injuring myself is very high." She also advises that she informed the principal that the personnel coordinator suggested that she request the leave of absence and that the principal suggested that she write the letter to the superintendent. The Petitioner asserted that she would not resign from her position. Attached to the March 7 letter were past evaluations, a March 6 letter "to whom it may concern" from her chiropractor restating the symptoms of her injury, and the February 15 letter she received from the personnel coordinator suggesting the leave of absence. By letter dated March 19, 1996, the Petitioner referenced a March 15 meeting with the superintendent and states "[i]f there are no reasonable accommodations for a job replacement, I would like to request a medical leave of absence for the remainder of this year." She enclosed the letter from the chiropractor with the letter to the superintendent. There appears to have been no response from the superintendent to the Petitioner's request for a leave of absence. By letter dated June 4, 1996, the personnel coordinator responded to the request for leave of absence by stating that because the Petitioner was on an annual contract, the request for a leave of absence could not be granted. The letter also stated that due to a lack of funding, some employees would not be called back to work in the 1996-97 school year, and suggested that she should apply for a future vacant position "when you are again able " According to the leave policy set forth in the school board's employment handbook, any employee may request a leave of absence. Such requests must be made at least seven days prior to the requested leave period except in the case of emergency when the request must be made "as soon as possible." The policy requires that the leave application be made in writing and on the form provided for such requests. The policy provides that the School Board "may grant leave, with or without pay." The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner followed the school system policy in requesting a leave of absence after her accident. The Petitioner did not complete and sign a form requesting a leave of absence. The first written request to the school superintendent for a leave of absence was the letter of March 19, approximately 70 days after the accident. The first time the issue of a leave of absence was verbally addressed by the Petitioner was on February 26, 1996, approximately 50 days after the accident, when she told the school principal that she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator in his letter of February 15. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has a handicap or disability as those terms are defined under applicable statutes and case law. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in any employment decision on the basis of a handicap or disability. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner filed a Request for Disability Accommodation at any time prior to the end of the 1995-96 school year. For the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, a substitute teacher filled in for the Petitioner. The job remained open and available to the Petitioner through the end of the school year. The position was not filled on a permanent basis because school officials were uncertain about whether the Petitioner would be able to return for work. Paraprofessional employees working for the Highlands County School System are employed as annual employees for the first three years. After successful completion of the third year, the paraprofessional becomes eligible for consideration for continuing contract employment. An employee under an annual contract has no automatic right to re-employment. Continuing contract employment provides increased job security to an employee because termination of employment must be for "just cause" or when required by a "reduction in force." Continuing contract employees also receive preference over non-contract employees when workers are recalled after a reduction in force. The successful completion of the third year does not guarantee that the paraprofessional will receive the continuing contract, but only provides that such employee is eligible to receive such a contract The Respondent requires that in order to work a "complete" year, an employee must work for at least 150 days in a school term. Because the Petitioner did not work for at least 150 days in the 1995-96 school term, she did not complete the third year of employment and is not currently eligible for a continuing contract as a paraprofessional employee. The Respondent may permit a paraprofessional employee to work a fourth year, after which the employee automatically receives a continuing contract. Because there were concerns related to the Petitioner's job performance in the 1995-96 school year, the principal of the school would not likely have recommended that a fourth year of employment (and a resulting automatic continuing contract) be permitted.
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 the Petition for Relief filed by Mary Ann Kerney. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Katherine B. Heyward, Esquire John K. McClure, P.A. 230 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Mary Ann Florida Kerney 33870 4524 Elm Sebring, Avenue Florida 33870 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wallace Cox, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Leon County School District has just cause, as defined in Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), to end the Respondent's tenured employment as a teacher, due to allegedly deficient performance.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mr. Waters, has worked as a Special Education Teacher in Leon County for approximately 13 years. He most recently has worked in the field of Special Education at Oakridge Elementary School (Oakridge), starting in the school year 2001-2002 and ending in December 2005. Mr. Waters is married and has two children by a former wife, with whom he shares custody of his children. He has volunteered for 18 years as a Troop Leader for a troop of disabled Boy Scouts in Tallahassee. He has been recognized for those efforts by being the recipient of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Foundation's "everyday hero" award. He has also been a finalist for the Tallahassee area "volunteer of the year award" in 2005. When Mr. Waters was hired at Oakridge Elementary School he was interviewed by the head ESE teacher or "team leader", Donna George. He was chosen for the available position from three or four final applicants, based upon her favorable view of the qualities he could bring to the position, which she still believes to be the case. During the 2001-2002 school year the principal at Oakridge was Michelle Crosby. Ms. Hodgetta Huckaby was the Assistant Principal. Sometime during that school year Mr. Waters encountered a problem involving two of his students being engaged in an after school fight. He apparently referred the students for discipline to the Assistant Principal, Ms. Huckaby, and she sent the students back to his class. He disagreed with this disciplinary decision and appealed the matter to the principal, Ms. Crosby. Ms. Crosby resolved the disciplinary matter in favor of Mr. Waters' position. Ms. Huckaby thereupon called Mr. Waters to her office to upbraid him and express her anger at his having "gone over her head." After a heated exchange between the two she told the Respondent to "never come back into my office for any reason." Thereafter, for the remainder of his tenure at Oakridge their relationship was very strained, especially during the time Ms. Huckaby was Principal, which began at the beginning of the following year, the 2002-2003 school year, after Ms. Crosby left Oakridge and was replaced by Ms. Huckaby. In order to replace Ms. Huckaby's vacant former position as assistant principal, the District assigned Kim McFarland as the new assistant principal in the fall of 2002. Prior coming to the assistant principalship at Oakridge, Ms. McFarland had served as a fifth grade regular classroom teacher for 10 years in the District. She had no prior administrative experience and had no experience in Exceptional Student Education. Her degree field is in the area of elementary education. After the events at issue in this case, Ms. McFarland left Oakridge, on July 1, 2006, to become the assistant principal at Swiftcreek Middle School. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland jointly performed the annual evaluation of the Respondent for the 2002-2003 school year. They used the "Accomplished Teacher Performance Feed Back Summary Form." Mr. Waters's overall rating for that year was "at expectancy level." Ms. McFarland wrote several positive comments concerning his performance on that document, but he also received ratings of "below expectancy" in two areas, teacher performance improvement and professional development. Also, in the Spring of 2003, Ms. McFarland observed his class on or about April 23, 2003. She was positive about that evaluation and wrote Mr. Waters a note wherein she indicated that he had "presented a great lesson" and that his students were engaged and on task. She praised him for monitoring student behavior using a behavior management point system and found his room "exciting" because he displayed a great deal of students work on the walls. In the 2003-2004 school year, specifically in November 2003, Ms. McFarland informed Mr. Waters that his lesson plans were not adequate because he was failing to incorporate a new component which required that notations of student remedial reading levels be made, represented by "lower case" roman numerals. She required him to submit his lesson plans to be reviewed each Monday while he was seeking to improve his lesson plans. Thereafter, on April 26, 2004, Ms. McFarland notified the Respondent that he had satisfactorily complied with lesson plan requirements and no longer needed to submit lesson plans for review each Monday. She also emphasized in that letter of April 26, 2004, that he should adhere to his lesson plans, as prepared, in his teaching presentation to the extent possible, so that when administrators observed his room they would be able to determine exactly what he was performing at the time simply by looking at his lesson plan book. In the meantime, Mr. Waters was given an improvement notice on February 20, 2004, by Ms. McFarland. This was because of her concern that he was not fully cooperating with procedures and recommendations concerning behavior management; recommendations made by behavior management consultants on contract with the School Board. Those consultants were working with him and his emotionally handicapped (EH) student class at that time. During their meetings and contacts with Mr. Waters and his EH student class that year he had exhibited a good level of agreement and cooperation with their recommendations to him regarding changes in behavior management methodologies for his class, but the consultant, Dr. Adams, perceived that he was slow or reluctant to actually carry them out. Later in the spring of that school year, Dr. Adams took Mr. Waters on a tour at Kate Sullivan Elementary and another school, to observe how behavior management models or methodologies were employed in EH classes at those schools and which Dr. Adams opined he was later reluctant to implement in his own class. They communicated these concerns about his perceived intransigence in changing his behavioral management style or methodology to the administration at Oakridge, which resulted in the February 20, 2004, improvement notice from Ms. McFarland. Significantly, however, Ms. Haff, in her observations of the Respondent's performance during the following school year found that he had received the higher level of training in the "Champs program" concerning behavioral management, and had been and was successfully implementing it in his class and with his students to a great degree, although, of necessity, adapting it to the needs of his students and his role then as a resource teacher, rather than as a discrete EH classroom teacher during the following 2004-2005 school year. Ms. Huckaby changed his assignment from duty as a direct class EH teacher to that of "resource teacher" after the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Waters had a meeting with Ms. McFarland on February 20, 2004, to discuss that improvement notice, and her concerns that he was not fully cooperating with the recommendations of the behavior management consultants in terms of not carrying out their recommendations. During the course of that meeting she stated, "You know its not me that’s behind this" implying to him that Ms. Huckaby was actually the instigator of the improvement notice concerning this subject matter. Apparently Mr. Waters contacted union officials for the Leon County Teachers Association (LCTA) complaining that the improvement notice was too general and did not specifically point out what must be done to correct the perceived problem. In response to those concerns, in part, Ms. McFarland issued a subsequent improvement notice on April 27, 2004, with a few more specific expectations and which updated the status of Mr. Waters's efforts to address the concerns raised in the February 20th revised improvement notice. Ms. McFarland observed Mr. Waters' class on March 11 and March 16 and did a "part A" teacher's assessment document for each observation. Mr. Waters was due to be evaluated using the Accomplished Teacher Summary Form for 2003-2004 and so the assessment part A form was not required to be completed for him. Nonetheless, Ms. McFarland told Mr. Waters that these were really informal observations and she was completing these observation forms in order to get some practice using them since it was her first year as an administrator, formally observing and evaluating teachers independent of Ms. Huckaby. The Respondent did not get a copy of these assessment part A documents until June of that year and did not get an opportunity to discuss them with Ms. McFarland. Ms. McFarland also completed the Accomplished Teacher Feedback Summary Form for the 2003-2004 school year. That form states that overall assessments must be satisfactory if all the required areas are completed. Ms. McFarland described Waters' performance unfavorably in the "comments" section of the form and gave him an overall performance rating of "below expectancy level." He received this Accomplished Teacher Summary Form rating document on or about September 22, 2004. During the month of October he inquired of Ms. McFarland, union officials, and school district officials concerning the meaning of his overall "below expectancy" rating for the 2003-2004 school year. Apparently an attorney for the school district informed him that the evaluation was considered satisfactory on the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form, unless school administrators produced an evaluation document that indicated an overall "needs improvement" rating. Ms. McFarland had informed him that the Accomplished Teacher document reflecting the below expectancy rating was his only official evaluation. Although Mr. Waters received confirmation that the use of the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form rendered his 2003-2004 evaluation to be automatically a satisfactory one, it is also clear that Ms. McFarland intended to give him the below expectancy rating and for some reason mistakenly used the wrong form and procedure. During October 2004 the Respondent met with Ms. Huckaby to discuss some matter unrelated to his performance rating. During the course of that meeting, at which only Ms. Huckaby and the Respondent were present, Ms. Huckaby became angry at the Respondent and engaged in a tirade, calling him "the worst teacher she had ever seen, as well as making other unprofessional comments." Mr. Waters then stated to the effect that he did not think he was such a bad teacher since he had consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Ms. Huckaby then indicated that she felt he had received a needs improvement evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year, to which Mr. Waters retorted that based upon the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form being used his evaluation was deemed to be satisfactory overall. Ms. Huckaby then angrily threatened him with an unsatisfactory evaluation for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year. Only a week or two elapsed after this meeting and comment by Ms. Huckaby when, at Ms. Huckaby's behest, Mr. Waters inclusion class was changed to a "pull-out reading group," meaning that he then had to work with a new reading curriculum and plan his own reading lessons using that curriculum instead of relying upon and carrying out the regular classroom teacher's daily lesson plan reading goals, which had been the program he had been instructed to perform previously. Ms. Eydie Sands was dispatched by Ms. Huckaby to observe Mr. Waters' reading class and made critical observations during follow-up meetings with Mr. Waters and Ms. Huckaby; the team-taught writing group jointly taught by Mr. Waters and Ms. Wacksman, which had worked well in rendering progress to the students in writing, was abruptly separated into two sections by Ms. Huckaby with no explanation or apparent reason; thereafter on approximately November 6, 2004, Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a lengthy letter of harsh criticism as to almost all aspects of his teaching performance and directed him to immediately comply with 13 directives contained in the letter. Additionally, Mr. Waters' 2004-2005 school year resource teacher schedule was changed five times, adding further confusion to an already difficult year, which started with a new classroom assignment. The new room was piled high with boxes of materials for many teachers and classrooms other than his own. This circumstance required him to spend his entire pre-planning time moving and clearing out his newly assigned room so that he could use it. Significant changes and requirements were imposed for lesson plans, student progress monitoring requirements, and the new A3 computerized IEP technology, as well as a substantially increased amount of related paperwork burdens placed upon all teachers at the school, including Mr. Waters, through Ms. Huckaby's policy directives. One directive in the November 6, 2004, letter from Ms. Huckaby required Mr. Waters to again submit weekly lesson plans to school administrators by 8:00 a.m. every Monday morning. The normal procedure provided for having lesson plans to be examined from time to time, after advance administration notice to the faculty of their lesson plan review dates. Despite lesson plan component changes made unilaterally by the administration in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years which added several time-consuming, ill-defined requirements to the previous less formal structure for lesson plans, the Respondent's lesson plans during those years remained detailed and organized when compared to those of his fellow special education teachers who apparently were deemed to have performed this task appropriately. In carrying out this instruction Mr. Waters tried to obtain model lesson plans and to incorporate the new requirements into his plans. They were consistently unacceptable to Ms. Huckaby, however, and ultimately cited as one of the reasons for his termination recommendation. Similar, and even less detailed lesson plans of his colleagues that had been found acceptable, were not reviewed or remained the same even after administrators provided plan improvement instructions, without those teachers being subjected to discipline therefor. In an effort to comply with the directive concerning his lesson plans and because the new lesson plan components imposed were difficult to understand and reasonably apply, especially for an ESE teacher and students, Mr. Waters sought to obtain model plans and lesson plan advice, but received little or no meaningful help. His mentor teacher assigned for 2004-2005, Michelle Smith, did not respond to his request for samples of her lesson plans. The Oakridge administration gave him only limited excerpts of two teachers' lesson plans for 2004-2005, which were confusing and did not themselves comply with the new lesson plan format imposed that year. In the 2005-2006 year the Respondent was not asked to submit lesson plans on a weekly basis and received no assistance with lesson plans until Ms. Palazesi, who was observing his class or classes that fall, in early November, wrote a model lesson plan, adapted from one of his actual lessons. Ms. Palezesi, however, was not aware of the lesson plan requirements in place at Oakridge then, and even her lengthy lesson plan sample, for just one class period, did not meet all of Oakridge's lesson plan criteria imposed for 2005-2006. It is noteworthy that the lesson plans for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 of teacher Charles Robshaw, also a resource teacher for Special Ed at Oakridge clearly do not comply with the lesson plan requirements. This fact serves to corroborate the Respondent's contention that only he was held strictly accountable for the administration's excessively detailed and to some extent non-germane lesson plan requirements. In both pertinent school years the Respondent was deemed deficient by Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland in terms of timely or fully complying with student progress monitoring test data compilation requirements. The Respondent did keep abreast of his students daily classroom progress and maintained files on their work and test papers. In the 2004-2005 school year, however, in the early part of the year (September thorough mid- November) he encountered problems in timely complying with submitting the "cover sheet" student progress test data information as part of the curriculum notebook he was required to supply the administration, through the mechanism of either monthly or bi-weekly progress monitoring meetings between teachers and the administration. He was given a needs improvement notice as to this issue, and as the year progressed, he complied with these requirements. In the 2005-2006 school year he inadvertently missed the initial progress monitoring meeting because he became confused as to when his fourth grade team was supposed to meet for the progress monitoring session and he candidly admitted that was his own mistake. Ms. McFarland did not criticize him for that, but simply reminded him that he had missed the meeting. A subsequent meeting early in the fall of 2005 was scheduled with Ms. McFarland and he did attend with his notebook (or other required data) for a 3:00 p.m. meeting. He had an pre-existing appointment after school at 3:30, which he could not miss, and he informed Ms. McFarland of that fact. She excused him from the meeting. After those two early progress monitoring meeting discrepancies in September 2005, however, the Respondent complied with his progress monitoring requirements and those issues were not again raised with him, until raised as one of the reasons in Ms. Huckaby's final decision in late December 2005 as to why she recommended his termination. Significantly, the school administration only checked to see that teachers other than Mr. Waters had completed similar student data compilations only once or twice early in each school year. Subsequently, each year the administration was less interested in actually inspecting such data and course test score charts plotted on spread sheets/graphs by most teachers. In neither of the two school years in question was Mr. Waters given a full planning period or a week after students arrived to prepare for his resource assignment ESE students. These are privileges which were customarily given to resource teachers in prior years. Despite the meager planning time he was accorded on the administrator's schedule, in reality he lost significant valuable planning time by escorting students to and from classes and due to his morning duties. Adequate planning time is crucial to the work of special education teachers, particularly if one is deemed to be struggling with lesson planning, IEP preparation and timeliness issues, and related A3 IEP technology time demands. The Respondent asked for schedule changes to improve his ability to meet the new administration demands, as, for instance, to allow time during the day to input IEP requirements into the A3 system to prepare IEP documents, instead of at the end of the school day when all the ESE teachers were on the A3 system, which slowed it down drastically. Ms. Huckaby, however, never agreed to provide such schedule changes so that he could more efficiently use his planning time. Indeed, in the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Huckaby scheduled Mr. Waters to spend 26.25 hours teaching students each week which is more than the 25 hour per week maximum teaching time provided by the collective bargaining agreement while still providing him less than a full class period of uninterrupted planning time. Sometime in the 2003-2004 school year the system for generating individual education plans (IEP) changed from paper IEPs or the so called "gibco" IEP system (apparently a school based software operated system) to a district-wide computer net system called the "A3 IEP." This was a difficult system to learn and to use in completing IEP's without mistakes in the first effort. The District made training available in 2004, particularly in the summer of 2004 and subsequently. It can take as much as three hours to create IEP's "from scratch" on the A3 system and to input all the necessary student demographic and test score history data to upgrade a previously hand-written or gibco-generated IEP in converting it to an A3 IEP. This is especially so for newly trained or partially trained teachers. Complicating these time constraints were the Respondent's limited planning time, with competing meetings being held in the conference room area where cumulative ("cume") folders were housed at Oakridge, which are necessary to the student data research required to generate the IEP's. Thus teacher access to the demographic and testing information needed for IEP completion was somewhat restricted at times. Moreover, Mr. Waters had his only significant block of continuous planning time, when he could work on IEP's, immediately after school. This is the time of day when the A3 IEP computer network operates very slowly because most of the ESE teachers in the entire district are attempting to use it immediately after school hours. These factors are part of the reasons Mr. Waters in the Spring of 2004 had an occasion when IEP's were prepared somewhat late and computer-generated progress reports on one occasion were submitted several days late. It is also true that the Respondent and Ms. Wacksman were not formally trained on the A3 system until late January 2005. This delay in receiving the A3 system training appears to have been due to both the Respondent's and Ms. Wackman's delay in seeking the training and the district's and the school's inattention to scheduling the training sessions. With regard to the occasion testified to by Ms. Petrick concerning his late preparation of, or need to correct mistakes in some IEPs, the Respondent established that he immediately corrected the minor mistakes in several of the IEPs he prepared and that, when Ms. Petrick contacted him about the need for him to make corrections, in several instances the corrections had already been made on the original IEP in question but had not gotten corrected on her copy. Moreover, four or five of the students who had to have corrected IEPs, or whose IEPs were submitted slightly late were students who the Respondent himself had identified to his administration as being wrongly placed by the administration. The students were supposed to have been in a fourth grade level program and instead were in a first or second grade level program. This necessitated re-constituting their IEPs. The Respondent, after alerting the administration to its error also completed the new IEPs on these students. In any event, it is true that Mr. Waters could have begun sooner and more timely prepared the IEPs involved and the same is true of the occasion when the somewhat late progress reports caused his reprimand by Ms. McFarland. It is also true, however, that the requirement of using the cumbersome A3 system to prepare IEPs, more particularly the lack of adequate usable planning time, and the somewhat chaotic effects of five schedule changes during that school year imposed by Ms. Huckaby also contributed to the issue encountered near the end of that year concerning timeliness and corrected IEPs. Although the Respondent received less than satisfactory evaluation ratings as to professionalism and ethics because of the issue regarding delays and mistakes in the IEPs described above, these were a small number of occurrences, concerning very few students, at one particular period of time in the school year. They did not cause any delay or other adverse effect in the provision of ESE services to students nor the loss of any federal, state, or other special education funds, or adverse effects on the school's rating. Moreover, this aspect of Mr. Waters' performance improved after this occasion. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland made significant changes in required lesson plan and progress monitoring formats, and student progress charting. These requirements were considerably more time demanding and were accompanied by rigid reliance on upgraded, scripted reading and standardized math curricula with the advent of the 2005-2006 school year. These new requirements were to be applied by all ESE teachers for their students. Ms. Huckaby imposed a severely time-constrained, scripted reading curriculum for Mr. Waters' class and also a mandatory new vocabulary program that took up to 15 minutes more of his reading class time block each day. She also required an additional fluency probe-recording requirement to be carried out weekly in all reading classes, including Mr. Waters', which required an average time for completion of five minutes per student. Mr. Waters' reading mastery (RM) curriculum required class time scheduled during the first ninety minutes of his day in the 2005-2006 year. This was clearly impossible to carry out and remain consistent with the RM program's lesson sequence requirements, particularly with the addition of the fluency probe and vocabulary project requirements that Mr. Waters and all teachers were required to include in their reading classes that year. In fact, the reading mastery schedule for Mr. Waters was impossible to carry out within the allotted time period, even when one was not additionally delivering the required vocabulary project lesson and doing the reading probe requirement. In this regard one of the individuals asked to assist Mr. Waters in the 2005-2006 school year was Donna Haff, of the FDLRS staff. Ms. Haff, in working with Mr. Waters, tried to develop a better means for him to address the RM scheduling problem. She began that effort by "model teaching" his scripted RM classes in order to better understand his problem. This means that she simply tried to teach the RM class herself to see if it could be done within the mandatory curriculum and time period in which Mr. Waters was required to do it. Despite her extensive experience and familiarity with RM curriculum and her experience teaching it as a trainer for teachers, Ms. Haff was unable to complete the RM lesson in the time allotted to Mr. Waters, even without performing the mandatory new vocabulary program or any reading fluency probe requirements. She concluded that his RM schedule could not reasonably be carried out. She informed Ms. Huckaby of that conclusion. Ms. Huckaby expressed her frustration to Ms. Haff concerning this problem by asking, "Do you realize how much time we have put into this?" Ms. Huckaby decided not to act on Ms. Haff's advice and decided not to make any changes in Mr. Waters' 2005-2006 RM schedule. On or about June 3, 2005, Ms. Huckaby imposed an improvement notice on Mr. Waters, listing items in his instruction and teaching management that she felt needed improvement and concomitantly imposing a 90-day probationary period running from a date in September through early December 2005. Making only two observations of Mr. Waters' teaching herself, she relied upon reports of Margot Palazesi's 13 observations of Mr. Waters' classroom and teaching during the 2005-2006 school year from generally September through December. Ms. Palazesi's primary expertise, however, was in IEP compliance, IDEA compliance and grant funding compliance. She has a great deal of training in exceptional student education including a PHD degree, but she was not trained or qualified to work within and with regard to Leon County's performance observation and assessment for teacher evaluation, as either an administrator or a classroom mentor. Ms. Palazesi was unfamiliar with the lesson plan requirements at Oakridge and with the CHAMPS behavioral program requirements. She acknowledged that she understood Mr. Waters had the CHAMPS program implemented in the behavioral management aspect of his class and teaching, but she had little familiarity with what it entailed. She did acknowledge, however, that he had an award system for behavior and academic performance for his students built into and actively followed in his classroom. Ms. Palazesi also was not certified in reading and had not taught a reading mastery class in 20 years. Nonetheless, she made 8 of her 13 observations of Mr. Waters' teaching in his RM class. She did not have any understanding of the impossible double-scripted reading class schedule for his two reading groups that he was required by Ms. Huckaby to execute within the 90 minute time block. Through her interaction with Mr. Waters she came to understand from him that there was more material in the double-scripted reading curriculum than could be delivered in the 90 minute period, as Ms. Haff's testimony also showed. Ms. Palazesi, nonetheless, criticized his lecture teaching style, without acknowledging that that teaching method might have been effectively imposed on Mr. Waters in large part due to the impractical time constraints placed upon his delivery of the reading program, the vocabulary requirement and the reading fluency assessment requirement, imposed on him by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Palazesi also noted, early in her observations, that Mr. Waters did not, in her view, engage in a review of material previously instructed, as, for instance, the day before, or inform the students what they would be learning in the lesson that day. Concerning one or more of her October observances, however, she acknowledged in her testimony that he had done that or started doing that. Moreover, one of her notations was acknowledged by her to be inaccurate in that she criticized him for not doing an introductory portion to his lesson, but then acknowledged that she had arrived some 10 minutes late, missing that portion of his lesson for that day. She also acknowledged that he was receptive to following her suggestions for improvements she thought should be made in his classroom management, in terms of assigning student desks, changing the arrangement of the room as to where a work table was placed, etc., and he did so. Ms. Palazesi also noted that he had a very good rapport with his students, and that his students behaved well and did their work in his classroom. They were on task much of the time. Although she criticized him for departing from his lesson plan on her first observation, in later observations she acknowledged he appeared to adhere more to his lesson plan. Ms. Palazesi was ostensibly dispatched to Mr. Waters' classroom to provide him technical ESE department-type assistance. However, she primarily engaged in making suggestions concerning ways that Mr. Waters could improve otherwise acceptable lessons and lesson plans and make improvements to his classroom management and the physical layout of his classroom. She acknowledges in her testimony that this was an exercise that she could have undertaken in any teacher's classroom and instructional regimen, and could have found ways to suggest improvements. Her suggestions, however, to the extent they were criticisms, appeared to have been relied on, and, inferentially, used to corroborate Ms. Huckaby's negative findings. During the second part of the 2004-2005 school year and the first half 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters used computer technology in his classroom. He received advice from Ms. Donna Haff on how to incorporate it as a relevant and exciting way to reinforce his course curriculum and began doing so. In each of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, he used power point technology in the form of game show question and answer formats ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Jeopardy," and "Hollywood Squares/Tic Tac Toe"). He also employed other types of computer technology in his classroom on a regular basis, whether or not they were also noted in his lesson plans or were specifically observed by Ms. Huckaby, Ms. McFarland, or Ms. Palazesi. He demonstrated an ability to incorporate technology into his classroom instruction at least as effectively as most of his colleagues. Despite this fact and Ms. Huckaby's own praise for Mr. Waters' use of power point technology as a reinforcement tool in her December 14, 2005, observation, Ms. Huckaby still asserted to the Superintendent of the District in her letter recommendation for his termination that Mr. Waters did not adequately incorporate technology into his teaching and claimed that the December 14, 2005, lesson where she observed his use of technology marked "the first and only time he has integrated technology in the teaching and learning process." If Ms. Huckaby had made adequate observations of his teaching and his classes, or had even adequately conferred with Ms. Haff, she would have known of the extent of his use of technology in the classroom (or else perhaps she knew it and disregarded it). This statement to the Superintendent is one of the indicators of the level of bias Ms. Huckaby bore towards Mr. Waters. Most of the ESE teachers, including Ms. George, Mr. Waters, and Ms. Wacksman customarily do not employ computerized grading of their students because of the unique, singular nature of each ESE student's problems, learning styles, abilities, and each ESE student's goals and the varying curriculum and social needs of each ESE student. These and the other individualized differences among ESE students render a hand-written old fashioned grade book the most effective way to make a record of each student's progress toward that student's IEP- codified goals. Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a negative rating in the area of technology use partly because he did not use a computerized grading system, but neither did any other ESE teacher at Oakridge. Mr. Waters was singled out for criticism for that aspect of his teaching and the others were not. All teachers at Oakridge, particularly ESE teachers, during both the relevant school years, worked under increasing lesson plan requirements and student performance monitoring and documentation requirements and changes, as well as curriculum changes and related paperwork and time constraints. These were very stressful and no doubt were related in a significant part to the fact that the school had slipped from a "C" rating to a "D" rating on Ms. Huckaby's watch as principal. This no doubt caused significant tension and anxiety for all concerned on the instructional staff and in the administration. Only Mr. Waters, however, was held strictly accountable to all deadlines and all aspects of the burdensome documentation requirements and time constraints imposed during those two school years. In the context of his limited planning time, the excessive student contact time scheduled for him in 2005-2006, the delays he encountered in getting A3 IEP System training (some of which were self-inflicted), the difficulties encountered in gaining sufficient access to the conference room where the cume folders were maintained in order to comply with progress monitoring requirements, as well as the repeated schedule changes to his 2004-2005 assignment schedule and the time constraints of his 2005-2006 reading mastery schedule, put the Respondent in a position where it was impossible for him to timely and fully comply with every requirement imposed on him. Ms. Huckaby's close monitoring of the Respondent, as compared to other teachers, under such circumstances, is reflective of her bias in favor of a recommendation of termination. It impelled her, Ms. McFarland and Ms. Palazesi to document and exaggerate the significance of every minor error or omission that involved Mr. Waters. Arranging for ESE meetings, monitoring and complying with deadlines related to IEP's, monitoring ESE consult situations and completing all IEP-related paperwork are the responsibilities of the assigned ESE teacher. The carrying out of these tasks, however, often involves frequent communications among, and timely cooperation with several other people, such as other ESE teachers, regular classroom teachers, school administrators, the District Staffing Specialist, and the ESE students' parents. Mistakes, delays, and miscommunications concerning these ESE teacher responsibilities will occur and while they are not desirable they are not unusual. When such problems arise they are normally corrected by all persons involved as quickly and cooperatively as possible without resort to blame. Although Ms. Petrick became critical of paperwork problems and delays Mr. Waters was responsible for in the last half 2004-2005 school year, Oakridge school lost no federal funding because of them nor was it shown that any students suffered in academic or behavioral progress because of them. It is noteworthy that the IEP-related deficiencies concerning Mr. Waters began to arise only in the second half of the 2004- 2005 school year around the same time that critical memoranda from both Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland were becoming the norm. In any event, Mr. Waters improved in these areas in the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Waters received little of the help promised him in the September 2005 revised improvement notice document. He did not have a national board-certified mentor assigned him for 2005- 2006, did not get to meet with consultants from the Reading Mastery Plus Program, "Open Court," the "Great Leaps," or the Harcourt Brace Mathematics Programs. He did not meet with anyone from the Florida Inclusion Network. The administration did not provide adequate or meaningful assistance to him in either school year, but rather denied, delayed answering, or ignored his specific requests for more planning time, model lesson plans which would comply with Ms. Huckaby's lesson plan changes and requirements, relief from his impossible RM schedule for 2005- 2006, and his request for a transfer to another school. Instead of providing practical help to him (with the exception of Dr. Adams), the District focused its "assistance" mostly upon sending more staff and district employees to observe him and provide resulting reports to Ms. Huckaby. (Ms. Smith and Ms. Sands in 2004-2005 and Ms. Palazesi in 2005-2006.) During the 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters work was being scrutinized over the 90 day performance improvement probationary period imposed by Ms. Huckaby which ended on December 8, 2005. During that time, however, his classroom activities were observed only once by Ms. Huckaby, on November 8, 2005. Ms. Huckaby's second observation of him took place nearly a week after the end of the probation period and was two and one- half hours long. It resulted in a critical observation report based primarily upon the last third of that classroom time when Mr. Waters had a formal lesson plan to take his writing class students to a "writing boot camp" session to be attended by all fourth grade teachers and students. Ms. Huckaby, however, refused to let him follow his lesson plan for that day's writing class and insisted that he teach the group there in his room. It was the last day his writing class would meet before the Christmas break which is why he planned to let them go to the writing boot camp with students from other classes on that day. There were no lesson plans for the rest of that week that he could adapt to the remaining one- third of his class that day, with the students unexpectedly present because of Ms. Huckaby's order; it was the last day of school before the Christmas break, and lesson plans for the next day or other days remaining in the week were thus unnecessary. Nevertheless, Ms. Huckaby made negative comments concerning allegedly inadequate planning for his writing group for the class that day after she concluded her observation. Ms. Huckaby had access to Mr. Waters' lesson plans for his December 14, 2005, class and before her observations that day. She had previously reviewed his lesson plans while observing his class to be sure he was precisely following those plans as he had often been instructed to do. She no doubt reviewed his plans for the December 14th lesson and had to have seen the writing boot camp entry. Nevertheless, she refused to let his students attend the writing boot camp. It was by this means that she was able to document a purportedly inadequately planned writing class activity for that day and then relied upon those negative comments in support of her termination recommendation to the superintendent which, inferentially, she had already decided to write. Ms. Huckaby only observed Mr. Waters classroom activities one time during the probationary period. Her only other observation of his classroom activities occurred on the December 14, 2005, occasion, approximately a week after the probation period ended. School administrators, however, are required to periodically evaluate and apprise teachers of their progress during such a 90-day probationary period, which Ms. Huckaby did not do.1/ The Respondent was confronted with a significant increase in time consuming paperwork/reporting requirements lesson plan requirements and the other burdens depicted in the above findings of fact, which Ms. Huckaby placed upon him. Other teachers and ESE teachers had to contend with some of these as well, although to a lesser extent and with less micro- management by Ms. Huckaby. Nonetheless, the Respondent made significant improvements in teaching methods, lesson plan quality and organization, classroom organization, the variety of planned classroom activities and his technology-supported lesson delivery methods. Mr. Waters was effective enough in his teaching and had made sufficient progress so that he received the second highest number of votes for "teacher of the year" from Oakridge's faculty and staff. He thus only ranked behind one revered teacher who had received the award before and who had more recently received the most votes, but declined the award in order to allow someone else to get it. Mr. Waters complied with all reasonable requests made of him, by and large, and in those areas of less than acceptable compliance made the necessary improvements in his compliance. He satisfactorily executed his job duties in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years as long as he was at Oakridge. Notwithstanding those improvements in performance, Ms. Huckaby continued to evaluate him as if he had made no improvements, pronouncing in June 2005 the results she had angrily promised him in their October 2004 meeting. She re- confirmed that negative assessment in December 2005 with her termination recommendation, made with only one observation by her during the actual period of his 90-day probationary status. Mr. Waters' teaching and classroom management performance in 2004-2005 as well as 2005-2006 and Ms. Huckaby's and Ms. McFarland's criticism of it, culminating in the termination recommendation by Ms. Huckaby, did not result and was not predicated on his students' FCAT scores. Ms. Huckaby admitted as much in her testimony as to both relevant years. The Petitioner attempted, in its rebuttal case only, to introduce test-related evidence that students of Mr. Waters in the 2004-2005 school year did not do well on standardized tests. That exhibit, and the information it was prepared from, however, were not made available at the hearing, during discovery, were not disclosed in the pre-hearing stipulation, and were not disclosed as a reason for Mr. Waters' performance criticism and termination by any charging document, notice or pleading by the Petitioner made a part of this record. The Petitioner in essence was using or attempting to use the proffered Exhibit 46 to buttress its case-in-chief because it was not rebuttal of anything raised or offered in the Respondent's case. Therefore, it was excluded on the basis that it constituted improper rebuttal evidence and, moreover, because of the non-disclosure problem referenced above, was not admissible on due process of law and "notice pleading" principles. Moreover, the information included in the charts in Petitioner's proffered Exhibit 46 is misleading with respect to comparative student progress issues by teacher. There is confusion as to which student was the pupil of Mr. Waters or another ESE teacher or teachers. It is difficult to determine based upon that exhibit, and the testimony proffered concerning it, an accurate comparison of student progress by the students depicted under Mr. Waters's teaching performance versus that of other teachers. Further, the "Writes Upon Request" chart comparison contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 48 and the testimony related to it, was clearly not a reason used or considered in lodging performance-related criticism against Mr. Waters or ultimately in the decision to terminate him. It clearly could not have been considered until several months after Mr. Waters had been removed from the Oakridge school. Had those Writes Upon Request chart results been considered by Ms. Huckaby in the context of this case, they would not serve as preponderant evidence of sub- standard performance by Mr. Waters, considering the other evidence of the circumstances and abilities of his students in conjunction with his performance. Mr. Waters is at minimum an adequate teacher and in some aspects of his performance a superior teacher, as, for instance, in his ability to advance his students' performance in writing and in terms of his ability to motivate his students and establish a good rapport, with an interest in learning, in his students. His classroom management skills, instructional methods and classroom demeanor fall within the parameters of acceptable performance and behavior as a teacher and an ESE teacher. He consistently and successfully relied upon his own behavior management reward system for his students, employed the Champs Program in his classroom and was successful at motivating his students to enjoy learning. In demonstrating a very good rapport with his students, he always created a classroom environment of mutual respect that is conducive to student learning and his students were learning. His overall performance for both school years at issue was objectively satisfactory despite Ms. Huckaby's biased assessment of his performance during those years and in her ultimate termination recommendation. In fact, the excessive number of areas of criticism by Ms. Huckaby concerning Mr. Waters job performance made it quite difficult to demonstrate mastery of every criticized area, much less to demonstrate it all in only two formal observation attempts by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Donna George is a 21-year career ESE teacher. She has a master's degree in the areas of learning disabilities, emotional handicap, and varying exceptionalities. She has spent 13 of her teaching years at Oakridge school. She is the ESE Department Team Leader at Oakridge, as well as the "technology contact" teacher, who trains and assists other teachers in implementation of technology programs and equipment at Oakridge. She assists in teacher technology training. She is also a National Board Certified ESE Teacher. Ms. George is thus a leader on the staff at Oakridge. She has observed in ESE meetings and in school-wide faculty meetings, throughout Ms. Huckaby's tenure as Principal, that Ms. Huckaby has an autocratic, dictatorial management style, and an aversion to allowing commentary or questions regarding her policies, directives or programs at Oakridge. Ms. Huckaby has demonstrated little tolerance for questions or comments she perceives to reflect less than complete agreement with her positions or policies. Indeed, although Ms. George is the ESE team leader, she seldom has asked questions or sought clarifications of Ms. Huckaby during such meetings, because of her fear that she would be yelled at, treated with disdain, anger or even with reprisal. Such has also been the experience of Ms. Wacksman and others. Ms. George established that Ms. Huckaby's management style had driven many good teachers away from Oakridge. A survey by the district staff concerning long-term teacher retention rates showed that Oakridge had the lowest retention rate at 17 percent. The next lowest school in the survey had approximately 30 percent retention rate. This survey encompassed the period beginning with the 1999-2000 school year to present. Ms. George observed that Ms. Huckaby often responded to questions or comments from Mr. Waters with both verbal and non-verbal ques, such as eye rolling or turning away or other mannerisms, that generally showed disdain for his questions or his opinions. Ms. George unequivocally opined upon cross- examination by the Petitioner that Ms. Huckaby clearly does not like having Mr. Waters on her staff and was "out to get him." According to Ms. George, Mr. Waters asked questions more frequently than others in faculty meetings, but his questions generally were reasonable ones. He apparently also would attempt to make humorous comments, at times which often irritated Ms. Huckaby and other teachers as well. It is likely that some of his motivation to question Ms. Huckaby and her motivation to treat him with disdain, stemmed from their strained relationship starting with the student disciplinary incident described above. In any event, Ms. George's testimony is accepted in establishing that Ms. Huckaby had a bias in favor of removing the Respondent from her staff, which colored her judgment in making many of her criticisms of his teaching, which long pre-dated his probationary period and which, along with her scant actual observations of his instructional prowess, caused some of his improvements to be overlooked or disregarded, and which caused him to be evaluated more critically than his colleagues as to some performance requirements. In fact, the preponderant evidence establishes that in an objective sense his performance as a teacher, although not flawless, was acceptable and improved in a number of areas. As found in more detail above, in consideration of the circumstances imposed on him by the school administration, in his capacity as a resource teacher, with the time and schedule constraints and disadvantages that status entails, he performed in at least a satisfactory way in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 years at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Leon County School Board re-instating the Respondent to a similar special education teaching position, with reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, in a manner so as to be "made whole" from the date of termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the employer, School Board of Alachua County, committed an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against Ms. Bates on the basis of her handicap. At the commencement of the hearing the Petitioner moved for a judgment on the pleadings or a determination that the facts were not in dispute on the basis of the respondent having failed to file an answer in accordance with Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the motion and provided the parties an opportunity to present their evidence. Both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and both parties offered exhibits. On March 17, 1988, a transcript of the hearing was filed and on March 28, 1988, both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' post-hearing submissions during the formulation of this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Ann Bates, began employment with the Respondent, School Board of Alachua County, on August 15, 1983, as a classroom aide assigned to Stephen Foster Elementary School. In August of 1985, she was transferred to the A. Quinn Jones Center and assigned to the classroom of a teacher named Sue Clarey. The Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center had initially contacted the Petitioner and asked her to work at his school. The Petitioner continued to be employed by the Respondent until March 14, 1986. The Petitioner's last job title was Paraprofessional II. On February 28, 1986, the Petitioner saw Dr. W. Alvin McElveen and was given a definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Richard Cunningham in early March, 1986. Petitioner has been a patient of Dr. Richard Cunningham for approximately four and a half years. In March of 1986, Dr. Richard Cunningham did not place any restrictions on Petitioner's employment. Petitioner's duties as a Paraprofessional II at A. Quinn Jones included feeding and tutoring students, as well as assisting the teacher in general clerical and administrative tasks. At all times the Petitioner was able to satisfactorily complete the job duties of a Paraprofessional II. On March 3, 1986, the Petitioner notified Mr. Jeff Jones, the Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center, that she had been diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis. In March of 1986, the Petitioner took six days off from work on sick leave (March 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11) and returned to work on the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986. On March 12, 1986, the school secretary, Ms. Dorothy Emo, placed a handwritten note in the Petitioner's school mailbox, which stated, in substance, "Please see Mr. Jones at your convenience." It was the common practice of the Principal to speak informally with any employee who was returning from more than a day or two of sick leave to ascertain how the employee was doing and to make sure that the employee felt well enough to return to work. On the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986, the Petitioner left the classroom, informing the teacher that she was going to see Mr. Jones, and went to the front office. She met with Mr. Jones at about 10:00 a.m. In the Principal's office, the Petitioner expressed her frustration with her medical condition and stated that it was her desire to resign her employment. In response to the Petitioner's expressed desire to resign, Mr. Jones asked the school secretary to bring in a "resignation form," which she did. It was a new form, with which the Principal was not familiar. The Petitioner and Mr. Jones then discussed her leaving employment and the effect it would have on her ability to collect unemployment compensation. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed that a voluntary resignation would preclude her from being able to receive unemployment compensation. This belief, as it turned out, was erroneous. The Respondent School District had recently revised its separation form to include all three types of separations (voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and retirement) on one form. Previously, resignation and terminations were processed on separate, different forms. The Principal, Mr. Jones, had never used this particular separation form. Further, the Principal had never used any separation form which indicated that an employee was being involuntarily terminated. He was also unsure what was meant by the term "involuntary termination." The Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed, albeit erroneously, that for the purpose of permitting the Petitioner to separate from employment and also collect unemployment compensation, the "involuntary termination" selection was the appropriate choice. This was by their mutual agreement. Mr. Jones had the form prepared in that manner and then he and the Petitioner signed the form. Mr. Jones gave a copy of the signed form to the Petitioner (which was contrary to the normal procedure) and then forwarded the original of the form to the district office for processing. Mr. Jones also called Will Griffin, the district supervisor of personnel, informed him of Ms. Bates' resignation, and told him that the form was en route. The above-mentioned form was received by Mr. Griffin around noon on March 12, 1986. Upon reviewing the form, he realized that it had been filled out incorrectly and he immediately so advised Mr. Jones by telephone and told Mr. Jones that the Petitioner would have to complete the proper section of the form. The Respondent's School District's procedures are that "involuntary termination" is used for only three types of separation: (a) dismissal of an employee, (b) job abandonment by an employee, or (c) deletion of a position. A school principal does not have the authority to involuntarily terminate an employee or to fill out a form to that effect. The "involuntary termination" form was, therefore, a nullity and of no effect. That form was not processed by the district office staff and was never acted on by the School Board. Principal Jones told his school secretary of the error on the form and asked her to prepare a corrected form. The corrected form indicated that Petitioner was resigning and was not being involuntarily terminated. The corrected form was signed by the Petitioner and the Principal on March 14, 1986, and it was then processed by the district office. At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 15, 1986, the Respondent School Board acted on the Petitioner's resignation and accepted it in a routine manner. At the time the Petitioner signed the second form on March 14, 1986, she did not indicate to the Principal in any way that she had changed her mind about wanting to resign. If the Petitioner had objected and had not signed the resignation form, she would have remained employed by the Respondent. At any time prior to the School Board's formal approval of a resignation, an employee may withdraw a resignation. At no time prior to the School Board's action on April 15, 1986, did the Petitioner withdraw her resignation or notify Mr. Jones or any other representative of the School Board of any change of mind regarding her resignation. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, no steps had been taken by Principal Jones, or by any other representative of the School District, to dismiss the Petitioner from her employment. At that time the possibility of dismissing the Petitioner had not even been discussed. The Petitioner applied for and was awarded unemployment compensation on the basis that she had resigned her employment for health reasons. It is the policy and practice of the Respondent to provide all employees with a written notice of deficiencies on a job performance warning record before any dismissal action is begun. It is also the Respondent's policy and practice that prior to initiation of dismissal proceedings, an employee's immediate supervisor takes steps to try to resolve any problem before referring the matter to the district supervisor. Employees are normally suspended with pay pending an investigation of the basis for proposed dismissal, and actual dismissal is only carried out by the School Board after the employee has been given an opportunity for a hearing. None of these things took place with regard to the Petitioner, because the School Board was not trying to and did not dismiss her. The Respondent has a policy of providing for grievances by its employees who believe they have been treated unfairly. The Petitioner did not file a grievance with the School Board.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Manatee County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22 (1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School District. Mr. Gagnon has been in the education field for approximately 23 years, and has been with the School District since 2002. Mr. Gagnon served as an assistant principal at Lakewood Ranch High School and as principal at Palmetto High School, both of which are in Manatee County. Mr. Gagnon was the principal at MHS beginning with the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Gagnon served as the MHS principal until he transitioned to the position of assistant superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the School District in January 2012. Mr. Gagnon served as the interim superintendent for approximately one month in September/October 2012 and then returned to the assistant superintendent position when another person was appointed interim superintendent. In 2005 the School District posted a position for a specialist in the OPS to investigate alleged School District employee misconduct. The then superintendent wanted to establish a standardized method of investigating employee misconduct. Ms. Horne interviewed for the position, and was appointed as the first OPS specialist. As there were no School District policies or rules in place when she started, Ms. Horne assisted in writing the School District’s OPS policies. Sections 39.201 and 39.202, Florida Statutes, are incorporated into the School District’s policies and procedures as Policy 5.2(1), Policies and Procedures Manual, School Board of Manatee County (2013), which provides: Mandatory Duty to Report Suspected Child Abuse. All employees or agents of the district school board who have reasonable cause to suspect abuse have an affirmative duty to report it. Employees or agents so reporting have immunity from liability if they report such cases in good faith. This includes suspected child abuse of a student by an employee. Ms. Horne provided the training on this policy and other policies to School District employees. As the OPS investigator, Ms. Horne was to “investigate alleged employee misconduct and other matters as assigned” to her by her supervisor. Ms. Horne never had the authority to determine whether or not someone had engaged in misconduct or to make any recommendations as to what may or may not have happened. Her role was to simply gather the information, prepare a report of her findings, and provide that report to her supervisor. In November 2012, Mr. Martin was the School District’s assistant superintendent for District Support, and Ms. Horne’s direct supervisor. During her eight-year tenure as the OPS specialist, Ms. Horne investigated over 800 cases of employee misconduct. The School District uses a progressive discipline model for its employees. Should an employee exhibit behaviors that could be considered inappropriate or misconduct, the School District has a step-by-step method of taking disciplinary action, from simply talking with the employee up to termination of employment. If it is an egregious action, such as sexual conduct with a student, immediate termination is an option. The discipline begins on-site by the site-based managers where the incident occurs. Those site-based managers could have that simple conversation, and if need be, it could progress to a verbal directive, a memorandum of conference, and/or a written reprimand. Site-based managers include principals, assistant principals, directors, and assistant directors.3/ In those instances where the disciplinary action could lead to days without pay or termination, actions that could only be taken by the School Board, OPS would open an investigation. During the first two weeks of November 2012, Mr. Rinder was approached by several MHS teachers regarding concerns for their students. When Mr. Rinder spoke with Mr. Sauer, MHS’s principal, about those concerns, Mr. Sauer asked Mr. Rinder to type up the list (Rinder’s List) and give it to Mr. Sauer. Mr. Sauer, in turn, forwarded Rinder’s List to the OPS. Rinder’s List: [1.] One staff member reported a phone call to a female student during class. The student was upset by the call and told the staff member that Mr. Frazier had asked her if “she had gotten her period and did she need him to go to the drug store for her.” [2.] One staff member reported that Mr. Frazier repeatedly called for a female student during class. When asked if it was important, Mr. Frazier said “yes”. [sic] When the staff member asked the student what the problem was, the answer was “My mom wanted to take me to lunch and he helped me do it”. [sic] [3.] Male student was failing a core class. He told the teacher that “Frazier told me that he will change the grade”. [sic] [4.] A female student was observed getting into Mr. Frazier’s vehicle after school hours and was transported. [5.] Female student told a staff member that she overheard students talking about several meetings in the park late at night with Mr. Frazier. She stated that Mr. Frazier placed and [sic] empty water bottle between her legs as she was walking down the sidewalk. [6.] Female student was observed sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap eating cake off his fork. [7.] Female student reported to a staff member that Mr. Frazier made a comment to a student in the hall that he had put her on skype [sic] and she took a picture and has it saved on her cell phone. She is scared that he will retaliate if she tells. [8.] Female student told a staff member that Mr. Frazier had made comments to her at the Tiki Bar that she was old enough to be there and they could talk. When she refused to talk with him, she started having issues with Mr. Frazier at school. She transferred to LIFE program to get out. [9.] Female student was reported to a staff member by several students who stated that she was having a relationship with Mr. Frazier. She transferred schools. This conversation was overheard by two teachers in the hall. [10.] The Math Department this week was discussing Mr. Fraziers [sic] questionable activities. Upon receipt of Rinder’s List, Ms. Horne was directed to open an investigation into the allegations contained therein. The subject of the investigation was an MHS parent liaison4/ and assistant football coach named Roderick Frazier. In a very general sense, the allegations involved misconduct by a teacher. Rinder’s List initiated the Frazier investigation. However, Rinder’s List contains blatant hearsay which cannot form the basis for a finding of fact without corroboration. There was no testimony provided by any students mentioned in items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, or 9 above; hence, it is impossible to verify what occurred. Item 10 merely indicates that an entire department at MHS discussed “questionable activities” by an individual, but it provides no specific activities. There was no credible, non-hearsay evidence in this record to substantiate any of these allegations (items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, 9 or 10). On November 14, 2012, an email with an attached letter from then-Superintendent David Gayler, was sent to Mr. Sauer around 8:40 p.m., advising him that Mr. Frazier was to be placed on paid administrative leave (PAL) on Thursday, November 15. Mr. Sauer notified Mr. Frazier appropriately. The School Board’s policy regarding placing an employee on PAL is dependent upon whether there is a potential for harm to any student and/or the employee could incur a suspension or termination from employment. Due to an on-going investigation at a different school, Ms. Horne did not arrive at MHS to begin the investigation until the afternoon of Thursday, November 15. Ms. Horne first interviewed Mr. Rinder, as Rinder’s List did not contain any names of teachers or students who were allegedly involved. Upon obtaining the names of the teachers who had expressed concerns, Ms. Horne interviewed most of the teachers on November 15. By the time Ms. Horne completed her teacher interviews, the students had been dismissed from school and were no longer available. At some time, Mr. Rinder observed a female student getting into Mr. Frazier’s car after school (Rinder’s List, Item 4). Mr. Rinder was not alarmed by this sight, but merely thought it was Mr. Fazier’s son’s girlfriend getting a ride. There was no testimony that Mr. Rinder ever brought this information to Mr. Gagnon’s attention. Ms. Aragon brought two concerns about Mr. Frazier to Respondent’s attention: 1) she thought that girls were sitting too close to Mr. Frazier in golf carts at MHS; and 2) Mr. Frazier had called her classroom telephone to talk with a female student. Neither Ms. Aragon nor Mr. Gagnon were absolutely certain as to when these concerns were brought to Mr. Gagnon’s attention: Ms. Aragon thought they were brought to his attention during one conversation, and Mr. Gagnon thought there were two separate conversations approximately a year apart, based on the actions that he took to address them. Mr. Gagnon’s testimony is more credible. Upon being told of the golf cart issue, Respondent immediately went to the MHS courtyard and observed Mr. Frazier with a female student sitting in his golf cart. At the same time, Respondent observed two other assistant principals with students of the opposite sex sitting in their golf carts. Respondent addressed Mr. Frazier first, and then issued a directive to his discipline staff that no one was to allow a student to just sit in a golf cart. Respondent directed that if there was a legitimate reason to transport a student, that was fine, but students were no longer to just sit in the golf cart. With respect to the telephone incident (Rinder’s List Item 1), Mr. Frazier called Ms. Aragon’s classroom and bullied his way to speak with the female student. After the student hung up the phone with Mr. Frazier, she appeared to be upset. Ms. Aragon immediately questioned the student, and Ms. Aragon understood that Mr. Frazier had inquired about the student’s menstrual cycle. Ms. Aragon thought it was “inappropriate” for Mr. Frazier to be speaking with a female student about her menstrual cycle, but Ms. Aragon testified that she did not know if the conversation impacted the student’s day. Ms. Aragon was not privy to the actual conversation between the student and Mr. Frazier, and the student with whom the conversation was held did not testify. The actual telephone conversation is hearsay. Ms. Aragon sought guidance from the teacher’s union president as to what to do. When Ms. Aragon spoke with Mr. Gagnon about Mr. Frazier’s telephone call, Mr. Gagnon immediately turned the issue over to an assistant principal for investigation. Based on the report from the assistant principal, Mr. Gagnon was not concerned that anything inappropriate or sexual was happening.5/ At some point in time, Ms. Coates overheard two female students comment about Mr. Frazier. Although Ms. Coates asked the students to tell her directly the basis for their comment, the students declined. (Neither student testified at hearing.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Coates told Respondent the students’ comment. Ms. Coates heard Mr. Gagnon respond that something was going around on Facebook. Mr. Gagnon did not remember Ms. Coates telling him of the students’ comment. However, Mr. Gagnon routinely reviewed the disciplinary records for the three parent liaisons and was satisfied that Mr. Frazier was not showing favoritism in his discipline to one group of students over another. It is not uncommon for students to perceive that a teacher is showing favoritism towards a student or group of students. At the conclusion of the teacher interviews on November 15, Ms. Horne understood that the allegations had occurred a year or two before they were reported in Rinder’s List. This thought process was reinforced when Ms. Horne met with some of the MHS administrators in Mr. Sauer’s office where they had a telephone conference with Mr. Martin. Following the telephone conference, Ms. Horne returned to the School District’s main office and again conferred with Mr. Martin for directions. On November 15 or 16, 2012, Ms. Horne had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon at the School Board building. Mr. Gagnon asked about the Frazier investigation. Ms. Horne responded that the only issues she was hearing had previously been addressed, and that Ms. Horne would be returning for other interviews. Additionally, Mr. Martin had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon about the Rinder List allegations. Mr. Gagnon maintained that the allegations were old and had been dealt with appropriately. Ms. Horne shared with Mr. Martin that the Rinder List allegations were old and had been dealt with previously. Based on this information, Mr. Martin, in his sole discretion, determined to remove Mr. Frazier from PAL on November 16, 2012, and return him to work. Ms. Horne was surprised by this, as her investigation was incomplete. Ms. Horne interviewed Mr. Frazier as well as one other teacher, on November 16, 2012. Although Ms. Horne had the name of an alleged victim, Mr. Martin directed her not to interview that student at that time. In January 2013, a former MHS female student, D.K., wrote a letter to MHS alleging that Mr. Frazier did various inappropriate acts towards her while she was a student at MHS during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. In her letter, D.K. stated that she became close to Mr. Frazier during her two years at MHS. D.K. met Mr. Frazier at a park near her home, but during her second year at MHS (2011-2012), Mr. Frazier “started being weird with [her] and saying inappropriate things to” her. D.K. admitted that she frequently rode in Mr. Frazier’s golf cart around the school, and that Mr. Frazier put a water bottle (Rinder’s List Item 5, second sentence) in between her legs (between her knees and crotch) as they were sitting in the bleachers at the softball field and while sitting in a golf cart. D.K. came forward with the letter because she had heard of the Frazier investigation and that it was being closed. Several days after D.K.’s letter was received in OPS, Ms. Horne interviewed D.K., who was accompanied by her mother. Ms. Horne was unable to confirm D.K.’s credibility completely because Ms. Horne left OPS prior to the conclusion of the Frazier investigation. The most disturbing part of D.K.’s testimony came when D.K. admitted, and Ms. Peebles confirmed, that during the 2010- 2011 school year, Ms. Peebles walked into Mr. Frazier’s office unannounced and observed D.K. sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap holding a piece of cake (Rinder’s List Item 6). Ms. Peebles immediately instructed D.K. to get off Mr. Frazier’s lap and to sit in a chair on the other side of his desk. Mr. Frazier appeared to be unfazed by Ms. Peebles entering his office unannounced and witnessing this scene. Mr. Frazier proceeded to handle the disciplinary matter that Ms. Peebles had brought to him. Ms. Peebles reported the observation to an assistant principal, Matthew Kane, but not to Respondent. Ms. Peebles did not believe there was abuse on-going, but thought it was “not appropriate” for Mr. Frazier to have a student sitting on his lap. D.K. testified that “after he [Mr. Frazier] got in trouble he started getting me [D.K.] in trouble for things that I had been getting away with the whole time I was there [at MHS].” D.K. did not provide a time-frame or what “trouble” Mr. Frazier had gotten her into while D.K. was at MHS, and no evidence was provided otherwise. Further, D.K. never told Mr. Gagnon of any issues involving Mr. Frazier. D.K. was enrolled at a different local high school when Mr. Frazier was placed on PAL. Ms. Peebles relayed another issue regarding Mr. Frazier; however, it involved hearsay and was not corroborated by the student who initially reported the issue to Ms. Peebles. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding of fact as to that issue. In late January 2013, Ms. Horne transferred to an assistant principal position at a school district elementary school. Both Ms. Horne and Mr. Martin confirmed that the Frazier investigation had not been completed when Ms. Horne left OPS. Ms. Horne had not submitted a written report to her supervisor which would have signaled the completion of the Frazier investigation. The specialist position in OPS remained vacant until July 2013 when Mr. Pumphrey assumed the position. Mr. Pumphrey confirmed that there “had been an ongoing investigation both at the School District level and law enforcement surrounding Rod Frazier.” In an effort to gain speed in his investigation, Mr. Pumphrey reviewed the Frazier investigation file and became aware that the School District “had stalled their investigation pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.” Mr. Pumphrey reviewed Mr. Frazier’s personnel file and determined there was “no documentation of any discipline to Mr. Frazier.” Additionally, Mr. Pumphrey pulled all the published information including media accounts and police reports, and reviewed them. As Mr. Martin had been instrumental in hiring Mr. Pumphrey, the two spoke several times “because this thing [the Frazier investigation] was all over the place.” Several days after re-starting the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey expressed to the superintendent his concern about the close proximity of Mr. Pumphrey’s office to that of Mr. Gagnon and requested that Mr. Gagnon6/ be placed on PAL. The superintendent did so. During the course of the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey considered that Mr. Gagnon’s actions or inactions during the course of the Frazier investigation constituted “administrative negligence and/or intentional misconduct.” Mr. Pumphrey broadened the Frazier investigation to determine whether district administrators “had prior knowledge of complaints by female students and faculty regarding inappropriate conduct involving Frazier and, if so, why the complaints were not timely addressed.” There is no credible, non-hearsay evidence in the record to substantiate that Mr. Gagnon failed to investigate or report inappropriate conduct by a faculty member. When apprised of questionable or suspect conduct, Mr. Gagnon took the steps necessary to inquire. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding that Mr. Gagnon acted in the fashion alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment by the Pinellas County School Board as a painter in the School Board’s Maintenance Department for any or all of the following: excessive absenteeism, failure to report absences according to established procedures, failure to provide required medical documentation for absences, tardiness, insubordination, driving under the influence of alcohol and criminal conviction of driving while intoxicated?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, is the authority that operates, controls and supervises all free public schools in the Pinellas County School District. Dwayne Goodrow has been employed as a painter in the Maintenance Department for the Pinellas County School Board since April 18, 1989. His work has always been satisfactory and sometimes better than satisfactory. Over the years of his employment, however, he has had chronic and serious attendance problems. Absenteeism, Attendance and Other Performance Factors On August 2, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." The memorandum stated that since the beginning of the school year, Mr. Goodrow had been absent an excessive number of times, including 17 hours of leave without pay. It informed Mr. Goodrow that, "[t]his absenteeism is unacceptable and you must make an immediate and permanent correction of this behavior." (Petitioner's Ex. No. 1) It further advised him that the memorandum would be placed in his file as a record that he had been counseled about the matter and that he fully understood that any reoccurrence of excessive absenteeism would result in a letter of reprimand. The memorandum warns: In the event you receive a letter of reprimand and the excessive absenteeism continues, you will become subject to more severe disciplinary action, which could include suspension or dismissal. Id. The memorandum is signed first by Mr. Goodrow and then by school board personnel: Mr. Goodrow's foreman and general foreman as well as the Superintendent of the School District. On October 5, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for excessive absenteeism. The letter informs Mr. Goodrow of his General Foreman's belief that he has not realized the seriousness of his problem with absenteeism because in the interim since the August 2 memorandum he had been absent 29 and ½ additional hours. The letter warns, "if your absenteeism continues, it will be cause to recommend you for suspension or dismissal." Petitioner's Ex. No.2. It concludes, "Your signature below will acknowledge that you have received and understand this letter of reprimand." Id. Just as the August 2, 1990 memorandum, the letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow and school board personnel. On a Supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal signed by Mr. Goodrow January 18, 1991, he received a rating of unsatisfactory in the area of attendance and "needs improvement" in the area of punctuality. The remarks section of the appraisal states with regard to attendance, "[h]as received letters warning him of this, must be corrected." Petitioner's Ex. No. 17. The appraisal also states, "Dwayne has good painting abilities and knowledge, can be trusted to complete any job given him." Id. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." With the exception of stating that he had taken 15 hours of leave without pay, the memorandum is identical to the August 2, 1990 memorandum. On a supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal dated February 14, 1992, Mr. Goodrow was again rated unsatisfactory under the performance factor of attendance. The remarks section reflects that he received counseling on December 19, 1991, for frequent tardiness but also that "[j]ob knowledge is adequate," "[c]ompletes assigned work on time," "[h]as the ability to be a self-starter," and "[c]an be a good team worker." Petitioner's Ex. No. 16. On September 15, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received an Attendance Deficiency Notification Letter. The letter states "[y]ou are required to bring in doctor's documentation of your illness on all further sick leave absence requests." Petitioner's Ex. No. 4. Although there is a place on the letter for Mr. Goodrow's signature and a notation that signature by the employee does not imply agreement with statements in the letter, the letter reflects that Mr. Goodrow refused to sign it. On October 3, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received a Record of Counseling. It noted deficiencies in his performance in that, INSUBORDINATION - You were told to furnish doctors excuses for any sick leave taken as per letter dated 9/15/94. On 9/26/94 you used 2 hours sick leave and failed to provide Doctor's excuse upon request of your Foreman. Petitioner's Ex. No. 5. To bring his performance to the satisfactory level, Mr. Goodrow was advised he would have to supply a doctor's documentation of illness whenever he took sick leave in the future. On February 17, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was rated as "Needing Improvement," in the area of attendance on his performance appraisal by his supervisor. The remarks section of the appraisal reflects that he was counseled for not following leave policy but also that "Dwayne has shown a more positive attitude recently, he has the potential to progress." Petitioner's Ex. No. 15. Furthermore, Mr. Goodrow was rated "better than satisfactory, in the area of "job knowledge." Consistent with this rating, in the remarks section, the following appears, "Dwayne exhibits his job knowledge by identifying problems and solving them . . . ." Id. The potential for progress noted in February did not last long. On March 24, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for insubordination for failing to provide a doctor's excuse for sick leave absences contrary to previous instructions. The letter warned that failure to provide doctor's excuses in the future to justify sick leave will result in "further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." Petitioner's Ex. No. 6. Over the next 6 months, Mr. Goodrow began again to show progress. By early September, 1995, his attendance had "improved considerably," Petitioner's Ex. No. 7, and the requirement for a doctor's excuse for every sick leave absence was lifted. The procedure for reporting absences in the School Board's Maintenance Department is for employees to call in at least one-half hour prior to their normal starting time. There is an answering machine upon which a message can be recorded when there is no person available to take the call. Shortly after the lifting of the requirement for a doctor's excuse to justify sick leave, Mr. Goodrow, on Wednesday, September 13, 1995, was absent from work. He did not call in consistent with the procedure for reporting absences. He was absent again two days later. In addition to the failure to call in on September 13, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was absent without calling in on three other days in the fall of 1995: October 18 and 26, and November 9. Each time he failed to call in, Mr. Goodrow was verbally warned by Trades Foreman Al Myers of the requirement for calling in and was given a review of proper procedure. On December 14, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow proper procedure with regard to the four absences in the fall of 1995. The letter was the result of an agreement with Mr. Goodrow that the letter was the appropriate response by the maintenance department for the absences and failure to follow procedure. A stipulation was added, however, to the agreement: "[A]nother attendance incident within one year will result in recommendation for 'Time off without pay' or possible 'Dismissal'.". Petitioner's Ex. No. 7. The letter concludes, "Also, as of this date you are again required to provide medical proof of your [inability to attend work] . . . and you are required to notify your supervisor prior to the start of work shift you are going to be absent." Id. The letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow. On February 26, 1996, Mr. Goodrow and the School Board entered a Stipulation Agreement. The agreement reviewed Mr. Goodrow's performance appraisals for unsatisfactory attendance, and insubordination for taking sick leave without doctor's excuses. Furthermore, it stated that Mr. Goodrow: On December 15, 1995, . . . left work early without proper notification or required medical documentation. On January 3, 1996, Mr. Goodrow failed to report his absence according to established procedures, and on January 17, 1996, he failed to report his absence according to established procedures and requested 3.5 hours of sick leave without providing required medical documentation. Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. As an expression of regret and to affirm his commitment to notify his supervisor in the future regarding absences, Mr. Goodrow agreed to a three day suspension without pay effective March 19, 20 and 21, 1996. The stipulation also states that Mr. Goodrow, once again, understands that further problems could result in more serious disciplinary action, including dismissal. On April 16, 1996, Mr. Goodrow received a performance review finding him to have continued to demonstrate unsatisfactory attendance and judgment in that on March 6, 1996, he was late 3 hours with no explanation, on March 28, 1996, he was late one-half hour with no explanation, on April 3, 1996 he took eight hours sick leave without doctor's justification, on April 9, 1996, he was arrested and charged with DUI, and on April 11, 1996, he took eight hours sick leave without a doctor's justification. Driving While Intoxicated The job description for a painter employed with the Pinellas County School Board includes the requirement that the employee possess a valid State of Florida Class B commercial driver's license ("CDL"), to include "air brake" qualifications, and any other license as may be required by law. On March 30, 1996, while driving a motor vehicle off- duty, Mr. Goodrow was stopped by a law enforcement officer for failing to maintain his vehicle in a single lane of traffic. Deputy Howard Skaggs, a member of the Sheriff Department's DUI unit, was summoned to the scene to conduct filed sobriety tests to determine whether Mr. Goodrow was driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Skaggs smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the breath of Mr. Goodrow, who, in turn, admitted that he had consumed at least six beers at two different taverns. While at the roadside, three field sobriety tests were performed by Deputy Skaggs, all of which Mr. Goodrow failed. Deputy Skaggs concluded that Mr. Goodrow was without doubt impaired. At the jail, Mr. Goodrow was asked to submit to a breathalyzer. He refused with the statement that he had had too much to drink and the test would only incriminate him. Mr. Goodrow was arrested. On September 17, 1996, Mr. Goodrow entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, required to enroll in DUI school, fined $1000.00, and his driver's license was revoked for one year. Without a driver's license and a CDL, Mr. Goodrow no longer meets the job description of a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. Notification of Dismissal On June 19, 1996, Mr. Goodrow was notified that Superintendent Hinesley would recommend to the School Board that he be dismissed due to excessive absenteeism and insubordination. The DUI conviction, not having yet occurred, was not, of course, a factor in the superintendent's decision. Comparison with Other Employees Brett Paul, a painter in the Maintenance Department like Mr. Goodrow, also had attendance problems very similar to Mr. Goodrow's. He was suspended for three days without pay on the very same dates as Mr. Goodrow. Since the March suspension, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, Mr. Paul's attendance has improved with the exception on an isolated instance in which his absence was due to a "major life event," the purchase of a house. He has not been convicted of DUI. Tom Appold was arrested for DUI during a time that he was employed as a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. After his conviction for DUI, he requested that he be allowed to transfer to another department, presumably because he could no longer meet the job description requirement that he hold a CDL. The request was honored and he is now employed by the School Board in another section of the Maintenance Department for which a CDL is not required. Mr. Appold, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, has never been reprimanded or suspended for attendance problems. His attendance has always been found by the School Board's Maintenance Department to be within acceptable limits. Alcoholism and a Change of Heart Mr. Goodrow is an alcoholic. His excessive absenteeism, refusal to follow proper procedures with regard to work absences, insubordination, driving while intoxicated, arrest and conviction for DUI, and virtually every other work problem he had experienced over his seven years of employment with the School Board's maintenance department stems from alcoholism. For example, many of the days he missed at work were days following dart tournaments the night before at local establishments that served alcohol. Until the aftermath of his DUI conviction, Mr. Goodrow was ashamed and embarrassed to admit he suffers alcoholism. Today, with the assistance of professional counseling required as condition of probation for the crime of which he has been convicted, Mr. Goodrow is able to admit and freely did so at hearing that he is an alcoholic. The ability to make this admission is a major step forward for Mr. Goodrow. It is unfortunate that Mr. Goodrow's ability to face up to his problem has come so late. Had he admitted the condition when he was encountering problems with attendance at work, there were a number of options available to him and the School Board short of poor performance appraisals, letters of reprimand and suspension. As Dr. Martha O'Howell , Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards testified, We would have talked to him about the extent of that drinking problem. We would have referred him to . . . Cigna, the health provider. At that time, there was no formalized EAP [Employee Assistance Program] in place that the employee could go directly to, but there was . . . substance abuse counselling (sic) through Cigna that was available. We would have referred him or put him in contact with our risk management department. We would have encouraged him to take a leave of absence while he was seeking treatment, (Tr. 78). depending on the nature of the treatment, the severity, the length and so forth. We would have worked with him to provide a medical leave of absence if that had become necessary. If Mr. Goodrow's suspension were lifted and his employment was reinstated, the School Board's Employee Assistance Program would be available now to help him cope with his alcoholism. School Board personnel are not willing to make such a recommendation, however, in light of all that has occurred in Mr. Goodrow's case. A supervisor in the Maintenance Department expressed concern over the precedent that would be set if Mr. Goodrow were allowed to return to work, particularly in the minds of employees who might think that conduct like Mr. Goodrow's resulted in no meaningful consequences on the part of the School Board. Contrary to the concern of the Maintenance Department, the action taken to date, a suspension without pay that has been in effect now for more than eight months, has resulted in very definite consequences to Mr. Goodrow. In the main, he has been unemployed. He has made reasonable efforts to gain employment. But the loss of his driver's license has held him back. At the time of hearing, what little money he had been able to earn from the time of his suspension was certainly far below what he would have earned had he not been suspended from the employment he had held for more than seven years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the suspension of Dwayne Goodrow be sustained by the Pinellas County School Board but that he be reinstated without back pay if adequate conditions for his return to work can be agreed-to by the parties. If conditions of reinstatement cannot be agreed-to, Mr. Goodrow should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 11th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Elihu H. Berman, Esquire Berman & Hobgood, P.A. 1525 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 34624
