The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.22, Florida Statutes (2018).1/ At all material times, Respondent has been employed as a classroom teacher with the School Board under a professional services contract. During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach first grade at San Mateo in Jacksonville, Florida. The Step III Notice issued by the School Board to Respondent on April 20, 2018, constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. On February 14, 2018, students were sitting on the carpet in Respondent's classroom ready for a slideshow lesson that Respondent intended to teach. C.K., a 7-year-old student in Respondent's classroom at the time, started off in his chair, but then got up and started crawling under tables in an attempt to collect beads that had been left on the floor during a previous arts and craft activity. In response, Respondent gave C.K. a choice to either sit in his seat or sit at the back table. C.K. did neither, but rather continued to crawl around on the floor. C.K. then made his way to the back table and began making paper airplanes and throwing them. Respondent asked C.K. to stop that behavior and told him that if he continued he would have to leave the room and she would have to call his mother. At that point, C.K. broke down and became very upset, which was not his normal behavior. Respondent tried to talk to C.K. and calm him down. She also called guidance on the intercom for assistance with C.K., but there was no answer. While Respondent was attempting to contact guidance, C.K. began running around the room and yelling. Around this time, Annette Smith, the paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom, entered the room and tried to talk to C.K. Next, both Respondent and Ms. Smith tried to persuade C.K. to go outside the classroom, but he began to yell, scream, and kick. He grabbed a desk and would not let go. As C.K. was holding onto the desk, Respondent called the front office for assistance. C.K.'s grip on the desk caused the desk to begin to tip over. Ms. Smith reacted by holding the desk to prevent it from falling. Both Respondent and Ms. Smith were able to get C.K. to release the desk; he was kicking and took hold of another desk that had a student sitting in it. As that desk tipped, Respondent and Ms. Smith held onto it to prevent it from falling. Ms. Smith was able to get C.K. to release the desk. Respondent opened the classroom door, and Ms. Smith nudged C.K. out of the classroom and into the hallway. Once in the hall, Respondent tried to calm C.K. down in private, one-on-one. Shortly thereafter, the school nurse, Mindie Rose, came out of another classroom and offered to take C.K. up to the office. Nurse Rose never observed Respondent yelling at C.K. and, in her testimony, described the scene as one in which Respondent was trying to coax C.K. back into the room. While Nurse Rose was standing there, Assistant Principal Poag walked up. Ms. Poag's testimony regarding the scene contrasts with Nurse Rose's recollections. According to Ms. Poag, she heard Respondent yelling at C.K. Ms. Poag testified that she saw red marks on C.K.’s wrists and forearms and scratch marks on his hands. Later, when C.K. was brought to the office, Principal Wells noticed red marks on C.K.’s upper arms and his upper forearms. Nurse Rose saw C.K. rubbing his wrists and forearms and noticed red marks in the area he was rubbing. Nurse Rose was unable to determine whether the red marks came from C.K.'s rubbing or from something that happened in the classroom. Nurse Rose described the marks as “nothing deep,” “kind of pink,” and “on the surface.” On her own, without direction from anyone else, Nurse Rose got some ice for C.K.'s arms. At the final hearing, C.K. provided persuasive testimony by telephone regarding the incident. C.K. testified that he was being bad on February 14, 2018. He admitted grabbing tables, and that Ms. Smith pulled his hands off, but that he then put his hands back onto a desk. He also confirmed that he was yelling that day in the classroom, but only “half loud.” According to C.K., during the incident, Respondent was not holding his feet or yelling at him, she gave him a hug, and was talking to him about being calm. C.K.’s mother testified that Respondent had also taught C.K. the previous 2016-2017 school year, and that when C.K. was retained, she requested that C.K. be assigned to Respondent’s class for the 2017-2018 school year. C.K.'s mother testified that she had seen improvement in C.K.'s grades and attitude when being taught by Respondent. According to C.K.'s mother, C.K. never got into trouble at school until December 2017, around the same time that he lost his aunt and there was a custody battle going on with his mother and step-father. When C.K. started acting up in school, Respondent kept C.K.'s mother informed. In the two weeks prior to the incident, Respondent wrote two referrals on C.K. On February 1, 2018, she gave C.K. a written referral because C.K. was insisting on having his toy car, hitting the table, and yelling at the teacher. Respondent wrote the second referral on February 7, 2018, because C.K. was hitting classmates and throwing books and pencils across the room. For the behaviors leading to the second referral, a guidance counselor took C.K. out of the room. When he returned to the room, C.K. started yelling at others, ignored redirection, and told the teacher, “No, I won’t do it.” When C.K.'s mother found out that, during the February 14, 2018, School Board meeting, the School Board intended on disciplining Respondent for the incident, she wrote a statement on Respondent's behalf, pleading against the imposition of discipline. Assistant Principal Thomas testified that student behaviors, such as yanking on a desk and almost pulling it over and kicking and hitting a teacher, would be considered aggressive behavior. Principal Wells testified that it is appropriate to remove a child from the classroom when they are hurting themselves or others, if there is a danger, or if they are disrupting teaching and learning. Their testimonies are credited. In addition to her teaching job, Respondent has a second job at Publix Supermarkets. One of Respondent's co- workers at Publix, Megan Foster, told Respondent that she was taking an on-line class to become a teacher and the class required her to observe a school lesson. Ms. Foster had volunteered at San Mateo before, and Respondent believed that Principal Wells was aware of that. Therefore, Respondent invited Ms. Foster to observe, not teach or intern, in Respondent's first-grade class. Volunteers are allowed in classrooms at San Mateo. Volunteers are not necessarily interns. Ms. Foster was in Respondent's classroom on February 14, 2018, as a volunteer and observer, not as an intern. That same day, shortly after the incident with C.K., Principal Wells observed Ms. Foster for a few seconds. According to Principal Wells, Ms. Foster was speaking to Respondent's classroom children and standing at the projector. According to Principal Wells, Ms. Foster was “an unknown person.” As explained by Sonita Young, a onetime visitor can come to San Mateo without any prior approval as long as they are under supervision. At the time that Ms. Foster was observed in Respondent's classroom, Ms. Smith, the classroom paraprofessional, was in the classroom, and Respondent was just outside in the hall.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board: Dismissing the allegations against Respondent set forth in the Step III Notice and rescinding any discipline imposed thereby; and Reimbursing Respondent for any pay or benefits that she did not receive as a result of the School Board’s actions in this case, plus interest from the date that any such pay or benefit was withheld, as appropriate under applicable law. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 27th day of September, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 11, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on an annual contract that is subject to a professional service contract and collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools (hereinafter "M-DCPS") and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Santa Clara Petitioner first employed Respondent as a classroom teacher beginning in 2004 and assigned him to teach fourth-grade math at Santa Clara Elementary School (Santa Clara). In May 2007, Petitioner's Civilian Investigative Unit (CIU) investigated an allegation that Respondent made verbal threats, using profane language, towards the principal at Santa Clara. Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at the Region 3 Office on May 3, 2007, pending the outcome of the case. The allegation was substantiated for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties). During a Conference for the Record, written directives were issued to Respondent. On November 1, 2007, Respondent was issued a written reprimand which contained the following directives: Please abide by Miami-Dade County Schools (M-DCPS) School Board Rules at all times, specifically, School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 Responsibilities and Duties; School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4-1.08, Violence in the Workplace; and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.23, Code of Ethics. Conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and M-DCPS. The Education Practices Commission filed a complaint against Respondent based on the incident at Santa Clara. That complaint was settled with Respondent receiving an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As part of the settlement agreement, Respondent did not admit or deny the alleged facts of the Santa Clara incident. Turner Tech 2007-08 School Year Petitioner transferred Respondent to Turner Technical Senior High School (Turner Tech) in November 2007, where he taught math. There were no adverse incidents during the balance of the 2007-08 school year. Turner Tech 2008-09 School Year Valmarie Rhoden was the principal of Turner Tech during the 2008-09 school year and part of the 2009-10 school year. Phillipe Napoleon was an assistant principal at Turner Tech during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.1 On November 18, 2008, one of Respondent's students told Respondent not to touch him and threatened to harm Respondent if he did so. Dr. Napoleon and Ms. Rhoden handled the situation for Respondent by giving the student two days of indoor suspension. Respondent became irate when he learned that the student was not to be more severely punished. After he learned of the student's punishment, Respondent yelled at Dr. Napoleon in the earshot of students and other school personnel. Respondent attempted to undermine Dr. Napoleon's authority. After that incident, Respondent and Dr. Napoleon had a very contentious relationship. On February 19, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a memorandum entitled "Responsibilities and Duties" along with the Board Rule for his review regarding his unprofessional behavior because he had made an unprofessional outburst during a faculty meeting that Ms. Rhoden conducted and because Respondent had made unprofessional comments to other administrators. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: Please be reminded that it is your professional responsibility to conduct yourself in a manner that reflects credit upon yourself and the teaching profession. During the faculty meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, you made an inappropriate comment and noise while I was addressing the faculty on the respect shown teachers at the North Central Regional Center Teacher of the Year Breakfast. On December 18, 2008, I met with you; Mr. Hoffman (Lead Steward); Ms. Meyers (Steward); Mr. Mantilla, Vice Principal; and Mr. Napoleon, Assistant Principal, to discuss a series of verbal altercations you had with these administrators. We discussed the importance of being professional and respectful when addressing administrators and students. Please be advised that your conduct is a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and is unacceptable. Please refrain from addressing others in a manner that may be deemed unprofessional. A copy of the Board Rule is attached for your review. If you need further clarification, please see me. Your cooperation is expected and appreciated. On April 27, 2009, Ms. Rhoden convened an Emergency Conference for the Record with Respondent to discuss reports of misconduct by Respondent during a UTD meeting that had occurred on April 23, 2009, and reports of inappropriate comments attributed to Respondent during a parent-teacher conference that occurred on April 24, 2009. Participants at the UTD meeting reported that Respondent became uncontrollable and made disparaging remarks against the union representative who conducted the meeting. Teachers reported to Ms. Rhoden that they left the meeting because they had become afraid of Respondent. The parent in the parent-teacher meeting reported that, in the presence of students, Respondent referred to Ms. Rhoden as a "bitch" and to administrators as "three blind mice." The parent reported that Respondent had said "screw" administrators. When Ms. Rhoden confronted Respondent about his behavior, he became enraged and engaged in an uncontrolled tirade. A Conference for the Record was conducted at the school on Monday, April 27, 2009, and Ms. Rhoden issued the following directives to Respondent: Adhere to all School Board rules, especially those related to Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to the Code of Ethics. Conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times with all school personnel, parents and other stakeholders. Do not use profanity in the presence of students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders. Do not disrespect your administrators in your manner of speech or physical approach. Do not use provocative language towards administrators, students, staff, or other stakeholders. Respondent was the subject of a separate investigation based on an incident of misconduct that occurred on April 13, 2009, first in the hallway outside of Respondent's classroom and later in or near Dr. Napoleon's office. The incident that triggered Respondent the confrontations on April 13, 2009, occurred when Dr. Napoleon, while conducting routine observations of classrooms, noticed that a student in Respondent's classroom was wearing headphones. Dr. Napoleon entered Respondent's classroom and removed the headphones from the student. Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon outside his classroom and said "how dare you come into my classroom and disrupt my classroom" in a "profoundly loud" manner in the hallway within earshot of school personnel and students. Later in the day, Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon in the office area. Respondent was upset and became aggressive towards Dr. Napoleon when he demanded an explanation of a memorandum relating to the earlier confrontation that Dr. Napoleon had issued to him. Ernesto Mantilla, a vice-principal at Turner Tech, stepped between Respondent and Dr. Napoleon because of Respondent's aggressive, threatening behavior. Mr. Mantilla, who has military training, put himself in what he referred to as "harm's way" because he felt it necessary to de- escalate the situation. During that incident, Respondent told Dr. Napoleon that he was a "joke" and that he should leave the administration's efforts to Ms. Rhoden and Mr. Mantilla. Respondent threatened to tear up Dr. Napoleon's memorandum in front of Dr. Napoleon. Respondent asserted that his contract did not mandate him to be professional. He taunted Dr. Napoleon by telling him that if Dr. Napoleon was going to fire him, to just go ahead and do it so he can collect a check and stay home. Respondent refused to provide a statement during the course of that investigation stating that "it will take a year and a half to go through the process", and he would be resigning anyway at the end of the year. On May 14, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for his behavior on April 13, 2009, which directed him to immediately refrain from displaying unprofessional, confrontational behavior. The letter of reprimand also directed Respondent to stop using abusive and profane language in the performance of his assigned duties. Ms. Rhoden testified, credibly, that she and many of the staff members were afraid at times when Respondent "would go into his rage." His conduct "disrupted the environment" and impeded the workings of the school. Turner Tech 2009-10 School Year In September 2009, Dr. Napoleon conducted a training session for faculty at Turner Tech referred to as IPEGS training. Respondent was required to complete that training to maintain his teaching certification. Respondent left the room in which the training occurred and was absent for over half of the training session. Dr. Napoleon refused to award Respondent credit for the IPEGS training. Respondent became irate when told he would not be given credit and believed that Dr. Napoleon was harassing him. Ms. Rhoden retired in October 2009, and Lavette Hunter became the principal of Turner Tech. On or about October 19, 2009, Respondent replied to a co-worker's email and sent it to all employees sarcastically commenting on the teacher's updating of the school on his involvement with a student internship program. Respondent stated, "please, no more e-mails about your presence. You're wonderful. Feel better?" The teacher complained to Ms. Vidal, and when she discussed the concern with Respondent, he was very irate and said that he was "tired of this bullshit" and was leaving for the day. Respondent told her to find coverage for his class and left school. On October 26, 2009, Respondent went into Dr. Napoleon's office "ranting and raving" because he said that Dr. Napoleon was talking about him. During that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Napoleon whether he had gotten to be an assistant principal as a result of affirmative action. When Dr. Napoleon asked him to leave his office, Respondent refused, stating that he was going to leave when he got ready to leave. He thereafter left. Dr. Napoleon believed that Respondent's comment was a racial slur and, on October 27, 2009, filed a complaint with the M-DCPS Office of Civil Rights, which triggered an investigation (the civil rights investigation). Dr. Napoleon is African- American, and Respondent is Caucasian. Respondent disrupted a faculty meeting conducted by Dr. Napoleon on October 27, 2009, and stormed out of the meeting causing his co-workers to feel uneasy and unsafe. Respondent got upset when Dr. Napoleon declined to interrupt his presentation to answer Respondent's question. Respondent was loud and disruptive (Dr. Napoleon described it as "ranting and raving"). Respondent made a threatening gesture towards Dr. Napoleon as he left the room. Dr. Napoleon testified, credibly, that Respondent's conduct undermined his authority to lead and to provide a safe learning environment for students and for teachers. On October 28, 2009, Ms. Vidal (an assistant principal at Turner Tech) met with Respondent. During the course of the meeting, Respondent expressed that he thought he was being harassed and that he viewed himself as a disgruntled employee. He then made an implied threat that students would suffer on the FCAT because of the manner in which he was being treated. Ms. Vidal was so disturbed by Respondent's comments that she felt that she immediately contacted her principal and put the incident in writing. Respondent was removed from the school effective November 5, 2009 and placed on alternate assignment during the course of the civil rights investigation. On his last day at his worksite, Ms. Vidal and a security guard escorted Respondent to his classroom so he could collect his belongings before he was escorted out of the building. While in the classroom, in the presence of students, Respondent made demeaning comments to Ms. Vidal and told her that she and Ms. Hunter were responsible because they had not protected him from Dr. Napoleon. Respondent's demeanor and his outbursts caused Ms. Vidal to fear for her safety. Based on Respondent's conduct in October and November 2009, Ms. Hunter made a finding that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violation of School Board Rule, 6Gx13- 4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. A Conference for the Record was conducted by Ms. Hunter on January 5, 2010, and Respondent was directed to "refrain from using inappropriate actions [sic] during the work day" and was issued copies of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.001, FAC, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, FAC, The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession. He was also issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was warned that "noncompliance with this directive will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures" and "any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action." The matter was referred to the Regional Office to for further review (the conduct investigation). Administrative Placement Respondent remained out on Administrative Placement pending the disposition of the conduct investigation and the civil rights investigation. On March 16, 2010, the School Board's Office of Civil Rights Compliance closed its civil rights investigation, concluding that "No Probable Cause" existed that a violation had occurred. During his administrative placement for the civil rights investigation, Respondent was assigned to his residence and was not working. As part of his administrative placement, Respondent was instructed to call the Region Office twice each day at specific times, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. If he failed to call-in as instructed, he would not be entitled to payment for that day. Respondent did not call either morning or afternoon on seven days on which he was assigned to his residence and not working. On four days he called in the morning, but not in the afternoon. Petitioner initially withheld pay from Respondent for 11 days, but later issued him pay for the four days on which he called in the morning, but not the afternoon. During his administrative placement, Respondent again began to exhibit abusive behavior by making numerous and repeated harassing telephone calls to administrative offices. On March 17, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., M-DCPS Region I Secretary Maria Rosemond received a phone call from Respondent. Respondent asked to speak to Mr. Richard Vidal, who is the administrative director of Region I. Ms. Rosemond told Respondent that Mr. Vidal was not in. Mr. Cohen again asked to speak to Mr. Vidal, and Ms. Rosemond told him he was not there. Respondent then said, "I know Vidal is there. Tell him I will be there in half an hour to get his fucking ass out." Respondent then hung up the phone. Ms. Rosemond was afraid that he was going to actually come to region and harm Mr. Vidal or others at the Region I office. An hour later, Respondent called again and asked to speak to Mr. Vidal. Ms. Rosemond transferred the call to Jennifer Andreu, Administrative Director, and Respondent explained that he was upset about a situation at Turner Tech. Ms. Andreu told Respondent that she would speak to the principal and rectify the problem. Respondent cursed at her and called her incompetent. On March 4, 2010, Respondent called Turner Tech demanding to speak to Ms. Hunter. When the phone call was transferred to Dr. Napoleon, Respondent yelled out, "Why the fuck did they transfer the call to you. I want to speak with Ms. Hunter, not you." When he spoke to Ms. Hunter, Respondent became irate and very loud. Ms. Hunter disconnected the line and never spoke to Respondent again (until the formal hearing). During the call, Respondent referred to Dr. Napoleon as an idiot and demanded that personnel at Turner Tech inform any caller asking about Respondent to respond by informing the caller that that he works at the Region I office. He further threatened that his lawyer would be calling and that the calls would be recorded. Respondent does not dispute his confrontations on the phone with numerous secretaries with whom he spoke. Respondent admitted to the admissibility and the accuracy of the written statements from those secretaries taken during the course of the investigation(s). Respondent believed that he should have been reinstated to the classroom at the conclusion of the civil rights investigation. Because the conduct investigation was still pending, it was not appropriate to place Respondent back into a classroom while the additional issues concerning his conduct were being reviewed. As such, Respondent remained out on alternate assignment pending the disposition of this new investigation. On April 22, 2010, Dr. Marinelli, the Region I superintendent, met with Respondent to discuss his employment status. They reviewed the disposition of the civil rights complaint and formally informed Respondent that a CIU investigation was being conducted regarding his alleged violations of School Board Rules and misconduct. During the meeting, Respondent referred to Dr. Marinelli as "dear," told her to be careful when reading and if she was nervous to relax, and tried to speak over her as she read the allegations of misconduct to him. He further goaded her by telling her that the complaint should have been filed by Mr. Vidal and to get with his attorney because she was getting bad advice. When Dr. Marinelli read the allegation to him, he said "let me see that paper". She discussed the terms and conditions of his administrative placement and advised him that the conduct investigation was a separate proceeding than the civil rights case. Respondent became increasingly agitated as Dr. Marinelli read him his terms and conditions, and then yelled "just give me those papers". When she handed him the papers, he tore them in pieces and said in a loud voice "this is garbage, you are the queen of garbage". Respondent told Dr. Marinelli, "you may be able to click your fingers and your husband may do what you say, but I don't have to do what you say. I'm not afraid of you." Police came into the room due to his loud and disruptive behavior. During the course of the conduct investigation, Respondent was interviewed by CIU investigators. During his interview, he told one of the investigators to just fire him already, and he called the investigators liars. He took out his cell phone and represented that he was on the phone with an attorney and that he was recording their meeting. He even fabricated that one investigator was physically attacking him. Due to his belligerent and aggressive conduct and his verbal tirade, the meeting was terminated and a police officer was summoned to escort him out. On June 8, 2010, CIU issued a report that concluded that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A1.212, code of Ethics, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.08, Violence in the Workplace. Before Respondent was administered disciplinary action as a result of the conduct investigation, he again engaged in additional misconduct toward Dr. Marinelli that led to a final investigation conducted by the School Police. On July 29, 2010, Dr. Marinelli received a phone call from Respondent wherein he was agitated and uttered profanity, including the "F" word, at her. He further yelled, "Don't think I'm afraid of you. What I'm afraid is if you would sit on me." That call was disconnected. He called again, and Dr. Marinelli took the call. Prior to her taking the call, Respondent had told a secretary that Dr. Marinelli could not hide behind a secretary. During that call Respondent continued to yell at Dr. Marinelli, stating "I dare you to do anything. You can't do anything to me." Dr. Marinelli told him to not call again, and he proceeded to call numerous times. When an investigator questioned Respondent during his investigation of the calls on July 29, 2010, Respondent told the investigator that he had called Dr. Marinelli a "fucking fat cow." That investigation was concluded with a finding of probable cause that Respondent had violated the rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges. A Conference for the Record was held with Respondent on August 5, 2010, at the Office of Professional Standards. Following that conference, the superintendent of schools recommended to Petitioner that Respondent's employment be terminated. Petitioner, at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 7, 2010, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause, including but not limited to, misconduct in office, gross insubordination, violence in the workplace, and violation of the School Board Rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Lee County (School Board) should terminate the Respondent, Christel Freeman, for fighting with another school bus employee on School Board property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christel Freeman, has been a school bus driver employed by the School Board since 2002. There was no evidence that she was anything other than an exemplary employee until an incident that occurred at the School Board’s Leonard Street bus compound at the end of the work day. She and her boyfriend, Mike Ortes, were driving their personal vehicle from the back of the compound to the front, where the employees clock out and usually visit for a while before going home, when she spotted another employee, Ashley Thomas, who had just recently been transferred to Leonard Street. The Respondent approached Thomas, who was visiting with co-workers at a picnic table, because she suspected that Thomas was having sexual relations with her boyfriend and wanted to tell Thomas to stay away from her boyfriend, stop interfering with the Respondent’s family unit, and stop “talking trash about her.” When she got within earshot, the Respondent asked Thomas if they could talk in private. Thomas said, yes, and the two walked away from the co-workers at the picnic table. The Respondent began to tell Thomas what she wanted to talk about, and the conversation soon became heated. After they left the view of the co-workers at the picnic table, they passed another co-worker who was sitting in a vehicle and who said something to Thomas. As Thomas turned to respond to the speaker, the Respondent struck Thomas with her hand or fist on the side of the face, near the eye. Thomas was carrying her car keys, cell phone, and purse and was surprised by the blow. When the Respondent followed up with another blow, Thomas began to defend herself by hitting back. The nearby co-workers very quickly ran to the combatants to separate them. In the process, the combatants fell down, with the Respondent landing on top. The scuffling continued for a brief time until the combatants were separated. By this time, Thomas’s shirt had been torn open at the front buttons, her face was bruised and swelling, and her eye was hurt. The Respondent also had an eye injury from being hit with Thomas’s car keys. The police were called, but the Respondent left the scene with her boyfriend by the time the police arrived. After some leading questions by the Respondent, Ortes supported her testimony that they went to the hospital for emergency treatment for her eye and, once there, called the police, who responded to the hospital. After discussing the incident with the police, neither woman pressed charges. The Respondent’s primary defense is that after she called Thomas a “nasty bitch,” Thomas struck her first with the car keys, and the Respondent defended herself. However, the other witnesses to the incident saw it the other way around, with the Respondent hitting first without provocation. The Respondent attempted to undermine that testimony by saying those witnesses were family and friends of Thomas. To the contrary, the evidence was that the family and friends of Thomas were not the eyewitnesses who testified; rather, Thomas’s family and friends either did not testify or testified that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While the Respondent attempted to downplay the state of her emotions at the time of the incident, it is clear from the evidence that she was angry at Thomas and initiated the conversation in that state of mind. It is possible that what triggered the Respondent’s violence was Thomas saying the Respondent should ask her boyfriend for the answers to her questions, which the Respondent took as flaunting an admission that they were having sexual relations. According to the Respondent’s testimony, her job with the School Board is very important to her and her family. Notwithstanding that she has not admitted instigating the fight with Thomas and throwing the first blow, she understands that the consequences of engaging in similar conduct again would certainly be the permanent loss of her job. For that reason, it is unlikely that she would put herself in that position in the future. There is a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) that governs the Respondent’s employment. The procedure followed in the Respondent’s case is set out in sections 7.10 and 7.103 of the SPALC agreement. Section 7.10 of the SPALC agreement provides: The parties agree that dismissal is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee’s job seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary actions(s) taken against SPALC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause. Section 7.10 also states that employee misconduct is a ground for suspension without pay or termination of employment. The SPALC agreement does not define misconduct. The School Board has policies that govern employee conduct. Policy 4.09 adopts a “zero tolerance” policy for threats of violence. It prohibits “any verbal, written or electronically communicated threat, suggestion or prediction of violence against any person.” Id. “Any serious threat of violence shall result in immediate disciplinary action and referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.” Id. School Board Policy 5.29(1) states: “All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional ” School Board Policy 2.02(2) describes and prohibits “unacceptable/disruptive behavior.” This includes “[u]sing unreasonable loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper.” Id. at ¶ (b). It also includes “[t]hreatening to do bodily or physical harm to a . . . school employee . . . regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes a criminal violation.” Id. at ¶ (c). It also includes “[a]ny other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, school classroom, or any other School District facility.” Id. at ¶ (e). Section 7.103 of the SPALC agreement allows an employee being terminated to either file a grievance under Article 5 or request a hearing before the School Board, but not both. Section 7.13 of the SPALC agreement provides that employees “shall not engage in speech, conduct, behavior (verbal or nonverbal), or commit any act of any type which is reasonably interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing, intimidating, threatening, or harassing against any person in the workplace.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of employee misconduct and either terminating her employment, or suspending her without pay and reinstating her upon entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Nancy J. Graham Superintendent of Lee County Schools 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Christel Freeman 2119 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916-4434
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (as finally amended)? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent: School Board Employment Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March 23, 1979. He is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. For the duration of his employment with the School Board until his suspension, Respondent was a custodial worker assigned to the D.A. Dorsey Educational Center (Center). At the time of his suspension, he was a lead custodian at the Center and, in the opinion of the principal of the Center, Stella Johnson, "do[ing] a fine job" performing his custodial duties. As the lead custodian, Respondent occupied a position of trust inasmuch as he had the keys to the Center and ready access to School Board property inside the building. Furthermore, at times, the performance of his custodial duties brought him in direct contact with students. Respondent: Post-Hire "Criminal History" and School Board Reaction to Reports of His Criminal ConductThe 1985 Warning In the summer of 1985, Respondent was the subject of a School Board police investigation. The results of the investigation were set forth in an investigative report prepared by the School Board police. Upon receiving the investigative report, which indicated that Respondent had been arrested after a purse snatching incident and charged with armed robbery, Henry Horstmann, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, scheduled a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. At the time of the conference, according to the information Horstmann had received, the armed robbery charge against Respondent had not been resolved. Horstmann warned Respondent at this 1985 conference- for-the-record that criminal activity on Respondent's part, whether occurring on or off the job, could lead to Respondent's dismissal. Approximately a year later, Horstmann was advised that the criminal proceeding against Respondent had ended with Respondent pleading guilty to, and being convicted of, the crime of "attempting to solicit." Because Respondent was "a good employee insofar as his performance at the work site," the principal of the Center02 wanted him to remain in his position. Consequently, he was not terminated. The Thefts at the Pembroke Lakes Mall In the fall of 1994, while working a second job that involved helping in the cleaning of the Pembroke Lakes Mall in Pembroke Pines, Florida, Respondent stole merchandise from stores in the mall (after business hours when the stores were closed). On November 28, 1994, Respondent gave a statement to Pembroke Pines police confessing to these crimes.03 Criminal charges were filed against Respondent. On April 25, 1995, based upon guilty pleas that he had entered, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of: one count of burglary in Broward County 02 Stella Johnson was not the principal of the Center at the time. It was not until August of 1991 that she became principal of the school. 03 In response to a question asked by the interrogating officer, Respondent stated that he committed these crimes because he had "[p]roblems . . . marriage, jobs, Circuit Court Case No. 95000607CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000609CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 94020151CF10A; and one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000671CF10A. In each of these cases, he was sentenced to 90 days in the Broward County Jail and one year of probation. The sentences were to run concurrently. In August of 1995, Johnson received a telephone call from Respondent's probation officer, who was seeking verification of Respondent's employment status. It was during this telephone conversation with Respondent's probation officer that Johnson first learned of the thefts that Respondent had committed while working at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. Immediately after the conclusion of the conversation, Johnson telephoned the Office of Professional Standards for guidance and direction.04 In accordance with the advice she was given, Johnson requested the School Board police to conduct an investigation of Respondent's criminal background. Pursuant to Johnson's request, on or about October 25, 1995, School Board police conducted such an investigation and apprised her, in writing, of the preliminary results of the investigation. Johnson passed on the information she had received from the School Board police to the Office of Professional Standards. Thereafter, a conference-for-the-record was scheduled to address Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." The conference-for-the-record was held on February 7, 1996. Dr. James Monroe, the executive director of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and bills, drugs, just problems." 04 Johnson advised the Office of Professional Standards during this telephone call that there had been a series of thefts of school property at her school and that, in some instances, it appeared that one or more school employees might be responsible because of the absence of any signs of forced entry. Johnson, however, had insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent was the perpetrator of any of these thefts. subsequently furnished to Respondent, a memorandum (dated February 28, 1996) in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: On February 7, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards conducted by this administrator. In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Dorsey Educational Center, Mr. Nelson Perez, District Director, Ms. Chris Harris, Bargaining Agent Representative, American Federation of State, County, [and] Municipal Employees, and this administrator. The conference was held to address Investigative Report No. A00007 concerning your prior arrest, and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian on March 23, 1979 and assigned to D.A. Dorsey Educational Center to the present. Conference Data Reviewed A Review of the record included reference to the following investigative issues: This administrator presented to and reviewed with you a copy of the investigative report in its entirety. In reference to your arrest of November 28, 1994, you reported having been detained by police authorities and that you remain on probation through April 4, 1996.05 You declined to make a comment when asked about your arrest of August 18, 1990 for purchase/possession of cocaine. This administrator noted a similar arrest of May 30, 1986 for possession of marijuana for which you declined to make a comment. In reference to your arrest of June 22, 1985, I noted that you had been arrested (May 30, 1986) while under a three year probation during the period of September 17, 1985 through September 17, 1988. Ms. Harris raised a question as to the need to address prior arrests. Ms. Johnson expressed concern relative to recurring incidents of theft during time periods for which you had been granted permission to enter the facilities during off duty hours. Ms. Johnson reported having previously discussed these incidents with you. Ms. Johnson noted that your second arrest had adversely impacted your overall effectiveness as an employee inasmuch as your assigned duties and responsibilities include making provisions for the maintenance, cleaning and security of School Board equipment and property. 0 5 It appears that, at the time of this 5 Cont. February 7, 1996, conference-for-the-record, the School Board administration knew that Respondent had been adjudicated guilty of, and sentenced for, the crimes (of burglary and grand theft) he had committed at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. This administrator presented to you and reviewed with you memoranda dated March 13, 1984, February 17, 1984, February 9, 1984, December 12, 1983 and November 2, 1983 in their entirety. I specifically reviewed with you the principal's notation of your unacceptable performance relative to your failure to secure gates and doors as required. Ms. Johnson noted that she has discussed similar occurrence with you on a recurring basis. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Associate Superintendent in the Bureau of Professional Standards and Operations, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Applied Technology, Adult, Career and Community Education, and the Principal of Dorsey Education[al] Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension or dismissal. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. On or about July 2, 1996, the School Board police supplemented its previous report of the results of its investigation of Respondent's criminal record. On September 25, 1996, another conference-for-the-record was held concerning Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, who had conducted the September 25, 1996, conference-for-the-record on behalf of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and sent to Respondent, a summary of the conference. The summary, which was dated September 30, 1996, read as follows: On September 25, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards, In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Miami Skill Center, Mr. Herman Bain, Board Member, AFSCME, and this administrator. The conference was held to address your noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian in 1979 and assigned to Dorsey Education Center where you have remained. I began by reviewing the reason for this conference which is to discuss a Records Check that revealed a total of four arrests. The last arrest was in 1994 for burglary and grand theft and it resulted in an adjudication of guilty. You said that during that period of time when you had been arrested, you had personal problems. However, currently that is no longer the case and you have your life under control. Ms. Johnson, your principal, said that your work performance is good and you do a fine job. Your attendance is also good. Your union representative requested a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, Employee Conduct, which was provided. I explained that although your arrests were not directly related to your Dade County Public Schools job, there is a level of expectation regarding employee conduct and your arrests place you in violation of that expectation. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendation will compel formal notification of the recommended action of disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or the imposition of community service. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. Since there were not further questions or comments, the conference was adjourned. At its October 23, 1996, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him "for just cause, including violation of employee conduct rule and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, effective July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997 (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and lines of administrative authority of DCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possess the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; Contract out for goods or services; and, Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "working conditions." Section 11 of Article IX is entitled "Personal Life." It provides as follows: The private and personal life of an employee, except for such incidents and occurrences which could lead to suspension and dismissal as provided by statute, shall not be within the appropriate concern of the Board.06 0 6 This provision of the AFSCME Contract does not protect employees who engage in criminal conduct inasmuch as the commission of a crime Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed: 1. verbal warning; 2. written warning (acknowledged); and, 3. A. Conference-for-the-Record. Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME bargaining unit members shall be is not a "private and personal" matter. Rather, it is "an offense against the public." Shaw v. Fletcher, 188 So. 135, 136 (Fla. 1939). consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record). The employee shall have the right to representation in Conferences-for-the-Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action. The Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions- in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non- reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- The employee initiates the separation by resigning, retiring, abandoning the position, or other unilateral action by the employee. Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- The employee is separated by management's decision not to offer another annual contract. However, such non-reappointment shall not be in lieu of discipline or lay-off. Employees whose performance has been deemed marginal by the supervising administrator, who have been counseled during the school year concerning performance, and have failed to perform acceptably shall not be reappointed. Such employees and the Union shall be put on written notice of possible non-reappointment. Counseling and written notice of non- reappointment shall be provided in a timely manner. This action shall not be arbitrary or capricious, but based upon reason for the best interest of the employer. AFSCME bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non-reappointment. Such employees may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . The factors most important in determining what type of separation occurred for a given employee are: which party initiated the action; what time of the work year the action occurred; and the employer's expressed intent. Appendix III of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "classification plan and procedures." Section R of Appendix III is entitled "Custodial Services." It provides, in part, as follows: The following guidelines and procedures will be implemented regarding the organization and provision of custodial services. 1. SUPERVISION The site administrator (e.g., principal) shall have overall responsibility and supervisory authority for all custodial activities and resultant facility condition. The principal's responsibility in this area is typically and properly delegated to the site Head custodian (or, in a few very large facilities, to a Plant Foreman). The Head Custodian (or Plant Foreman) shall be responsible for all custodial activities on all shifts. Custodians who lead other custodial workers in a group or team shall be designated as Lead Custodians. Lead Custodians would be limited to one per shift, per site. Where a single custodian is assigned to a shift and is responsible for closing and securing the facility at the end of that shift, that custodian would also be designated as a Lead Custodian. . . . CAREER LADDER The custodial career ladder shall include criteria/guidelines, as outlined below: Job Classification . . . Site Custodian . . . Lead Custodian . . . Head Custodian . . . Plant Foreman . . . Master Custodian . . . TRAINING . . . Site Custodian (1) Works at a school or facility site . . . Lead/Head Custodian or Plant Foreman (1) This is a leadership position at a school or facility site. . . . The School Board's Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C-1.021 As a School Board employee, Respondent was obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,07 including Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C1.021,08 which provide as follows: Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I) Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES 07 These rules and regulations are referred to in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. Pursuant to Article XI, violation of these rules and regulations can lead to disciplinary action. 08 An employee who does not meet his responsibility of complying with School Board rules and regulations is guilty of "non- performance of job responsibilities," as that term is used in Article XI, Section 4.C., of the AFSCME Contract. I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. 6Gx13-4C-1.02 Activities NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms its wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. 6Gx13-4C-1.021 FINGERPRINTING OF ALL EMPLOYEES UPON APPLICATION AND EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.02, it is the intent of the School Board to insure that only individuals of good moral character09 be employed by the school system. The Dade County Public Schools work force is mobile and an employee in the course of a career may be assigned to various work locations where students are present. It is thus necessary to perform the appropriate security checks on all newly hired personnel. All applicants for full-time and part- time jobs shall be fingerprinted at the time of application for employment. When the applicant is hired, the district shall file a complete set of fingerprints on the new hire with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). FDLE will process and submit the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for federal processing. The cost of fingerprinting and the fingerprint processing shall be borne by the employee. All new employees, full and part-time, shall be on probationary status pending fingerprint processing and determination, based on results of the fingerprint check, of compliance with standards of good moral character. Employees not found to be of good 0 9 Individuals who engage in "immorality," as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (i.e., conduct "inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals [which is] sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community") are not "individuals of good moral character," within the meaning of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.021. moral character will have their probationary employment terminated. For purposes of this rule, good moral character means exemplifying the acts and conduct which could cause a reasonable person to have confidence in an individual's honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation. The Dade County Public Schools shall review fingerprint reports and determine if an employee's criminal record contains crimes involving moral turpitude. For purposes of this rule, moral turpitude means "a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a person owes to other people or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes, fixes moral turpitude." Rule 6B-4.009(6), FAC. Employees found through fingerprint processing to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude will be terminated from employment. Crimes which may demonstrate moral turpitude include but are not limited to: Murder (Section 782.04 F.S.) Manslaughter (Section 782.07 F.S.) Vehicular homicide (Section 782.071 F.S.) Killing an unborn child by injury to the mother (Section 782.09 F.S.) Assault upon a minor (Section 784.011 F.S.) Aggravated assault (Section 784.021 F.S.) Aggravated assault relating to battery upon a minor (Section 784.03 F.S.) Aggravated battery (Section 784.045 F.S.) Kidnapping (Section 787.01 F.S.) False imprisonment (Section 787.02 F.S.) Removing children from the state or concealing children contrary to court order (Section 787.04 F.S.) Sexual battery (Section 794.011 F.S.) Carnal intercourse with an unmarried person under 18 years of age (Section 794.05 F.S.) Prostitution (Chapter 796 F.S.) Arson (Section 806.01 F.S.) Robbery (Section 812.13 F.S.) Incest (Section 826.04 F.S.) Aggravated child abuse (Section 827.03 F.S.) Child abuse (Section 827.04 F.S.) Negligent treatment of children (Section 827.05 F.S.) Sexual performance by a child (Section 827.071 F.S.) Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult (Section 825.102 F.S.) Drug abuse if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor (Chapter 893 F.S.) If the administration finds it appropriate upon consideration of the particular circumstances of an applicant's/employee's case (timing, persons involved, specific mitigating facts), a determination may be made finding that such crime as applied to the applicant/employee does not involve moral turpitude. A probationary employee terminated because of lack of good moral character including but not necessarily limited to conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude shall have the right to appeal such decision to Labor Relations and Personnel Management. The request for appeal must be filed within 15 days following notification of termination. Personnel who have been fingerprinted and processed in accordance with this rule and who have had a break in service of more than 90 days shall be required to be re- fingerprinted in order to be re-employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order finding that, for the reasons set forth above, "disciplinary action" against Respondent is warranted and imposing upon Respondent the "disciplinary action" described in paragraph 61 of this Recommended Order. 016 Failure to do so may result in further "disciplinary action" being taken against him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of March, 1997. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of March, 1997.
The Issue Whether there exists just cause to suspend Respondent from his teaching position for five days, without pay, for "misconduct in office" and "immorality," as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Piper High School (Piper)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. At all times material to the instant case, Enid Valdez was the principal of Piper; Patrick Lowe, Robert Godwin, and Sharon Grant were assistant principals at the school; and Donavan Collins was the school's social studies department chair. Respondent has been a social studies teacher at Piper since 2002. He presently holds a professional services contract with the School Board. During the first semester of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught three American History classes at Piper (during the first, second, and fourth periods of the school day). The previous school year, in or around February 2009, Respondent had ordered, in his own name, a 25-copy per issue subscription for the upcoming 2009-2010 school year to "New York Times Upfront" (Upfront), a magazine for high school students published by Scholastic, Inc., that Respondent believed to be an "excellent [learning] tool" from which his students could benefit academically. The total cost of the subscription (Upfront Subscription) was $246.13. Respondent planned to use the magazine in the classes he would be teaching at Piper the following school year. After receiving, in or around August 2009, 25 copies of the September 2009 issue of Upfront, the first issue of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent distributed them to the students in his three American History classes for their review. He told the students they each would have the option of using Upfront, instead of School Board-provided materials, for class assignments, provided they paid him $3.00 to help cover the cost of the Upfront Subscription. He subsequently asked each student in his three classes whether or not that student wanted to exercise this option and noted on the class roster those students who responded in the affirmative (Upfront Option Students). For the next two or so months, he collected money (in cash) from the Upfront Option Students and recorded each payment he received. On October 22, 2009, using his debit card, Respondent made an initial payment to Scholastic of $124.00 for the Upfront Subscription (that he had ordered in or around February 2009). He made a second and final payment of $122.13 (again using his debit card) on November 3, 2009. The money Respondent collected from the Upfront Option Students was insufficient to cover the $244.13 cost of the Upfront Subscription. Respondent paid the shortfall out of his own pocket. Sometime in early November 2009, Respondent gave the Upfront Option Students their first assignment from the magazine (copies of which Respondent had distributed to the students). During the 2009-2010 school year, Piper had the following policy concerning the collection of money (Piper Collection of Money Policy), which was published in the Piper 2009-2010 Faculty Handbook: Money is never to be left in any classroom, storage cabinet, or office desk. Collected money is the responsibility of the teacher and is deposited with the school bookkeeper by the end of the day. A receipt will be given when the money is deposited. Money cannot be collected by any teacher unless the collection and distribution of the money has been previously discussed, planned, and approved by the principal's designee and the bookkeeper has been informed. All money must be deposited daily with the bookkeeper. (The document referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Administrative Complaint as "Exhibit A" is a copy of the Piper Collection of Money Policy, as the parties stipulated at hearing.3 See pp. 66 and 67 of the hearing transcript.) Respondent was provided a copy of the Piper 2009-2010 Faculty Handbook prior to the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was aware of the Piper Collection of Money Policy. Nonetheless, in violation of that policy, he did not obtain, or even seek, the necessary administrative approval to collect money from the Upfront Option Students, nor did he deposit any of the money he collected from these students with the bookkeeper, much less inform her (or any school administrator, for that matter) of his money collection activities. The foregoing notwithstanding, his intent in acting as the conduit through which these students purchased issues of Upfront for use in his classes was to help the students achieve academic success, not to exploit them for his own personal gain or advantage. He never had any intention of doing anything with the money he collected from the students other than using it (as he ultimately did) to help cover the cost of the Upfront Subscription. It was not until on or about October 19, 2009, that the Piper administration first learned about Respondent's money collection activities as a result of discussions that Assistant Principal Lowe had with students in Respondent's classes. After having been briefed by Mr. Lowe regarding what these students had reported, Principal Valdez asked Assistant Principal Grant to speak with Respondent. During his meeting with Ms. Grant, Respondent admitted to collecting money from the Upfront Option Students to help pay for the Upfront Subscription, and he acknowledged that he had not sought approval from anyone in the school administration to do so. On or about October 26, 2009, Principal Valdez sent a Personnel Investigation Request to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit (SIU) through which she requested that SIU conduct an investigation of the matter. An investigation was authorized by SIU on October 28, 2009, and an SIU investigator was assigned the case a week later. On or about November 3, 2009, Respondent was provided with a letter from Craig Kowalski, the SIU Acting Executive Director, advising Respondent of SIU's "investigation into a complaint . . . regarding an alleged violation [by Respondent] of the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006(2)(h) [sic],[4] to include the collection of money from students to purchase magazines." After the SIU investigation was completed, an investigative report was prepared and presented to the School Board's Professional Services Committee for its consideration. The Professional Services Committee found "probable cause." A pre-disciplinary conference was then held, after which the Superintendent, on August 10, 2010, issued an Administrative Complaint recommending Respondent's suspension, without pay, "for a period of five (5) days effective from June 3, 2010 through June 9, 2010."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order finding that the charges against Respondent have not been sustained, dismissing these charges, and awarding Respondent any "back salary" he may be owed. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be disciplined as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Willie Vance, was employed as a lead custodian at Ponce de Leon Middle School in Dade County, Florida. Over the course of several years, starting as early as 1986, Respondent was counseled regarding the personnel rules and employment requirements for continued employment with the School Board. More specifically, Respondent was advised that absenteeism presented a hardship in the workplace and that he would not be permitted to adversely affect the normal operation of the school. In this regard, Respondent was referred to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program on at least two occasions. In May 1990, Respondent was cited for excessive absenteeism and reminded of the collective bargaining agreement provisions which outline when absences may be grounds for termination. In the years that followed, Respondent continued to have difficulty complying with the regulations regarding absences. He was cited for failing to adhere to the procedures for reporting absences. As lead custodian Respondent was responsible for opening the school at the beginning of each school day. On several occasions, school staff were left to wait for Respondent to arrive to open the school or turn off security alarm systems. Respondent's attendance problem increased and in 1995 he received verbal and written directives regarding his attendance and work performance. By January 1996, Respondent's conduct had not improved. Instead, his continued failure to abide by the directives regarding attendance and work performance led to an incident wherein Respondent used profane and vulgar language and threatened a member of the school staff with bodily harm. These acts occurred in the presence of students and staff members. On February 9, 1996, Respondent was directed to refrain from threatening and/or verbally abusing other staff members. More important, Respondent was advised that continued behavior would result in further disciplinary action. On February 29, 1996, Respondent was absent from work, failed to timely alert school staff that he would not be at work, and, as a result, the school did not open on time. On March 18, 1996, Respondent was absent from work without prior authorization and did not report his absence to school administrators. On March 19, 1996, Respondent failed to sign out on the payroll sheet as all employees had been directed. On March 20, 1996, Respondent failed to report to work without prior authorization from the school principal. On March 26, 1996, Respondent was issued a written warning that his continued failure to perform his assigned duties and repeated indifference to the directives regarding attendance would result in further disciplinary measures. On April 2, 1996, Respondent was advised that continued failure to follow directives would be considered insubordination. On April 11, 1996, Respondent failed to report for work, failed to give notice of his absence, and failed to open the school timely. Since no one knew Respondent would be absent, no administrator could cover for Respondent. As a result, on this date the school mail was not delivered (including employees' paychecks). On April 24, 1996, Respondent was notified that if his performance did not improve by the end of the 1995-96 school year, that a recommendation for disciplinary action would be made to the School Board by the principal. In May 1996, the principal was notified that Respondent had failed to follow through with the Employee Assistance Program's recommendations. Subsequently, Respondent's conduct deteriorated. On May 31, 1996, he made a threat to another staff member; on June 4, 1996, he had a verbal altercation with another custodian; on June 7, 1996, he was absent without prior approval; on July 9, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time; on July 17, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time; on July 22, 1996, he was absent from work without prior authorization; and on July 23, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time. On July 24, 1996, Respondent was issued a written warning again advising him that his continued failure to comply with procedures could not be tolerated. He was advised that his performance was unacceptable, that it was having a detrimental effect on his co-workers, and that continued failure would be considered neglect of duty and gross insubordination. On September 11, 1996, in the presence of students, Respondent was verbally abusive and threatening to an assistant principal. On September 25, 1996, Respondent had another altercation with a co-worker. Respondent threatened the employee by holding a gasoline container and suggesting he would pour gasoline over the worker and light a match. Despite additional warnings and conferences with Respondent, Respondent failed to abide by the directives from school administrators. The directives were reasonable in nature and related to the offensive and inappropriate behavior exhibited by Respondent. Nevertheless, Respondent did not improve. From October 1996 through January 6, 1997, Respondent continued to exhibit an indifference to the directives from school personnel. He continued to fail to report to work and, on January 6, 1997, did not report his absence. On February 5, 1997, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent from his employment with the school district and to initiate dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension without pay previously entered, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Willie Vance, pro se 3682 Grand Avenue, No. 3 Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated June 20, 2013, and the Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 28, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed, in part, by a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Dr. Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dorothy De Posada, the assistant principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Petitioner alleges, in its Notice of Specific Charges, an array of factual scenarios spanning several years that, when considered individually or in concert, supply just cause for Respondent's termination. Below, the undersigned has endeavored to address each seriatim. 2010-2011 School Year: Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a Conference for the Record ("CFR") regarding this alleged incident.1/ Respondent was directed to strictly adhere to all Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB") rules and regulations, specifically, rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213. 2011-2012 School Year: On April 13, 2012, subsequent to the investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 27, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB rules and regulations, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Respondent was further directed to refrain from contacting any of the parties in the incident, refrain from using physical discipline, and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Respondent agreed to a 17-day suspension without pay regarding the alleged incident. 2012-2013 School Year: October 24, 2012 On November 16, 2012, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on October 24, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; refrain from contacting any parties involved in the investigation; and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Additionally, on November 28, 2012, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand concerning the October 24, 2012, incident. November 5, 2012 On November 5, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey observed several male students standing outside of Respondent's classroom during the class period. While Petitioner contends said students were told to remain outside of the classroom at Respondent's instruction due to body odor, Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to support such a finding.2/ November 26, 2012 Shawnda Green-McKenzie is the Horace Mann social studies department chair and a social studies teacher. Ms. McKenzie explained that, on or around November 26, 2012, it was necessary for several homeroom classes to be "dissolved." The students in the dissolved homeroom classroom were to be added to the roster of other homeroom classes. Ms. McKenzie further explained that the homeroom teachers, such as Respondent, were unaware of the number of additional homeroom students they would acquire until the day the additional students arrived. On November 26, 2012, Ms. Green-McKenzie observed that a substantial number of the newly acquired students did not have desks or chairs available for their use in Respondent's homeroom class. She further observed some of the children sitting on the floor. Petitioner failed to present any evidence concerning when the new students presented themselves to Respondent's homeroom or the duration said students did not have available desks or chairs. While Ms. Green-McKenzie agreed that children sitting on the floor would "be kind of a safety concern if someone were walking around in the classroom," she further opined that Respondent's classroom was "definitely too small to take any additional desks" and adding additional chairs would make it "tight." February 8, 2013 On March 21, 2013, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 8, 2013, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and the teaching profession. On April 9, 2013, Respondent issued a letter of reprimand concerning the alleged incident which likewise directed her to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit to herself and the teaching profession. February 20, March 7, and April 1, 2013 Dr. Jones-Carey testified that, on those occasions when a teacher is absent and a substitute teacher is unavailable, the students are typically "split" among classrooms within the same department. Teachers are expected to cooperate and receive the "split-list" students. Prior to February 9, 2013, Respondent was accommodating and amenable to accepting students on the "split-list." On February 20, March 7, and April 7, 2013, however, Ms. Green-McKenzie was informed that Respondent was unable to receive, or uncomfortable in receiving, any additional students. Respondent's refusal to accept the split-list students was premised upon her concern that accepting students, who may potentially have behavioral problems, may incite further problems between herself and the Horace Mann administration. After the second occasion (March 7, 2013), Ms. McKenzie-Green simply stopped placing Respondent's name on the split-lists. On each of the above-referenced occasions, Ms. McKenzie Green accepted the Respondent's split-list students into her classroom. Ms. McKenzie-Green explained that her classroom is a "double" that always has additional space and seating and can accommodate upwards of 60 students. Dr. Jones-Cary credibly testified that Respondent's unwillingness to accept the split-list children created a disruption in the "flow of instruction" and was disruptive to the operation of the school. March 1 and 5, 2013 On March 1 and March 5, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed Respondent, during class, seated in a chair in the doorway of her classroom with her feet up on the doorframe. On both occasions, Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to move inside the classroom; however, she refused. March 7, 2013 On March 7, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed that Respondent's classroom door was open. When Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to close the door, Respondent refused. In addition to Ms. De Posada's directive, Dr. Jones-Carey had previously issued an email directive to all faculty and staff to keep the classroom doors closed in an effort to preserve the newly-installed air-conditioning system. March 12, 2013 On March 12, 2013, Ms. De Posada was present in the main office with several parents, as well as clerical staff. Respondent was also present in the main office for the purpose of making photocopies. Due to the number and nature of individuals present, coupled with a pending deadline on another administrative matter, Ms. De Posada requested Respondent to leave the main office and offered clerical assistance in providing Respondent the needed copies. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that, in response to the request, Respondent complained loudly and defiantly, and refused to leave the office when directed. March 21, 2013 On March 21, 2013, Ms. De Posada presented to Respondent's classroom to conduct an official observation. On that occasion, she observed that, after the class bell had rung, Respondent's students remained outside and unsupervised. Ms. De Posada took it upon herself to usher the students inside the classroom. Respondent arrived prior to the late bell and took her seat at her desk. Ms. De Posada advised Respondent that she was there to officially observe and requested Respondent's lesson plans. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that Respondent thereafter opened her desk drawer, tossed her lesson plans to Ms. De Posada without speaking, and slammed the desk drawer.3/ Respondent proceeded to call roll and, upon completion of same, began reading the paper. Once finished her reading, Respondent remained in her chair and, with the exception of reprimanding three children, did not engage with the students. Respondent did not engage in any conversation with Ms. De Posada throughout the duration of the observation. Respondent concedes that she did not interact with Ms. De Posada during the observation because of her concern of being falsely accused of irate or belligerent behavior. April 3, 2013 On April 3, 2013, Horace Mann held a mandatory faculty meeting to provide training for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). Per the UTD Contract, teachers are required to extend their workday for the purpose attending faculty meetings; however, such meetings cannot exceed one hour and shall begin no later than ten minutes after students are dismissed. On this occasion, the faculty meeting was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m., however, it began a few minutes later to allow all teachers to arrive. Respondent, believing the UTD Contract allowed for her to leave at 5:00 p.m., left prior to the meeting being formally dismissed and without prior approval, at approximately 5:00 p.m. When Dr. Carey-Jones called out to Respondent, she continued to walk away from the meeting. Respondent was notified via a school-wide email that a make-up session for the FCAT training would be conducted at 8:20 a.m. Respondent perceived the make-up session was voluntary because it was scheduled prior to 8:30 (the time she believes she is required to work) and conflicted with a FCAT practice run also scheduled for that morning. Respondent did not seek clarification as to where she was to report. Accordingly, Respondent did not present to the training, but rather, went to the testing center. It is undisputed that Respondent did not complete the requisite training, and, therefore, was unable to proctor the FCAT exam. As a result, other teachers were assigned to cover Respondent's duties or responsibilities. April 24 and May 6, 2013 On April 24, 2013, a CFR was held and Respondent was directed to adhere to School Board polices and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and her profession. On May 6, 2013, following Dr. Jones-Carey's recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated, the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") held a final CFR. Thereafter, OPS recommended that Respondent's employment be suspended pending dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Shavonne Anderson guilty of gross insubordination, suspend her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and place her on probation for a period of two years. Because Ms. Anderson has already been suspended for more than 180 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated, with the calculation of back pay not to include pay for the 180- day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 December, 2013.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Kenneth Ingber has been employed by Petitioner and assigned under a continuing contract to West Little River Elementary School. During Respondent's 23 years of employment by Petitioner, he resigned/retired twice. He was rehired by Petitioner after each resignation, the last rehiring taking place for the 1985/86 school year. His then-principal, Glenda Harris, hired him with the knowledge that he was an admitted recovering alcoholic. He told her that he was under control. She told him that she would give him a chance but that he would have to meet the expectations that all teachers have to meet. From the 1985/86 school year through the 1990/91 school year, Harris rated Respondent acceptable on his annual evaluations; however, during the 1989/90 school year, Respondent had an attendance problem when he began drinking again. Harris tried to get Respondent to obtain help, but he felt he could do it on his own. He deteriorated during that year but improved during the 1990/91 school year. During the time that Harris supervised Respondent, she had a problem with his not having lesson plans. He felt that he did not need them. For the 1991/92 school year, Respondent came under the supervision of Principal Lillian Coplin. Coplin was never advised of Respondent's alcoholism. On January 29, 1992, Respondent left school early without permission. He also failed to attend a Global Awareness Workshop scheduled for that day. Coplin discussed these failures with him on January 30, 1992. On January 31, 1992, Respondent arrived at work late and left early. The official working hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., but Respondent only worked from 9:47 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. On February 7, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to observe the working hours set by the collective bargaining agreement between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Labor Contract). On February 27 and March 2, 1992, Respondent failed to have lesson plans. On February 27, 1992, Assistant Principal Edith Norniella observed Respondent smoking outside of his classroom, but within view of his students. Prior to that date, Norniella had observed him smoking on school grounds on August 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and February 18, 1992. On each of these occasions, she told him not to smoke on school grounds. Coplin had also told him several times not to smoke on school grounds. On March 3, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to adhere to Petitioner's non-smoking rule. Norniella saw him smoking on school grounds at least two more times after that. On March 3, 1992, Coplin also directed Respondent to develop lesson plans according to the Labor Contract. On March 27, 1992, all teachers were given a site directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules before leaving for spring-break on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, Respondent reported to work at 9:25 a.m. in spite of the directive given on February 7, 1992. On that same date, Respondent also failed to comply with the directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules. Moreover, by April 22, 1992, he still had not complied with that directive. On April 22, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss his attendance problems and other failures to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and administrative directives. During the conference, he stated that he lost the gradebook but that the principal would not like it anyway. He also admitted that he did not maintain a parent log. Respondent was warned that any further violation of directives would be considered gross insubordination. He was also issued a written reprimand and directed to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and site directives. He was advised of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work. Respondent declined the assistance and treated the matter as a joke by posting the EAP referral on his classroom door. On May 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have lesson plans, student work folders with tests, or a gradebook. It was impossible to assess his students' progress. Respondent was given a prescription to help him correct his deficiencies. Prescriptions are activities which the employee is directed to complete. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was to prepare two teacher-made tests and submit those to Norniella for review. He was also to complete some activities concerning assessment techniques from the TADS prescription manual. His prescription deadline was June 16, 1992. On June 2, 1992, Respondent was wearing a "pocket-knife" on his belt. Both Coplin and Norniella considered the pocket-knife to be a weapon in violation of the School Board rule because, although Respondent did not physically threaten anyone with the knife, the wearing of such a knife was intimidating to students and to Coplin. The matter had come to Coplin's attention through a complaint from the parent of a student. In addition, both administrators believed that wearing a knife set a bad example for the students and did not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system. On June 3, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the knife incident. Respondent was issued a written reprimand and directed to cease and desist from bringing the pocket-knife to school. He was further advised that any re-occurrence of that infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. On June 5, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance and his future employment status. During the conference, he admitted to not having had a written lesson plan during the May 27 observation. He was told of the Labor Contract provision which requires weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring students' progress. He was also warned that if he did not complete the prescription from that observation, he would be placed on prescription for professional responsibilities and given an unacceptable annual evaluation. On June 19, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. He had failed to correct his deficiencies and had failed to complete his prescription. Moreover, he still had not turned in his gradebook, parent log, and daily schedule, as directed on March 3, 1992. He was given an unacceptable annual evaluation because of his deficiencies in professional responsibility. Respondent verbally disagreed with that decision stating that the unacceptable evaluation was for simple paper-pushing requirements. The prescription for professional responsibilities required Respondent to review from the faculty handbook School Board policy on grading criteria, to submit his gradebook on a weekly basis to Coplin, to maintain a gradebook and a log of parent conferences, to maintain daily attendance, to submit student assessment records to Coplin for review prior to submission of the nine-week grade report, and to complete the prescription from the May 27 observation by September 15, 1992. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. On September 20, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent because he was still wearing a "pocket-knife" in spite of the prior directive. He was directed not to wear the knife or the knife case. Respondent stated that he would not do as directed. On October 9, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have a lesson plan, student work folders, tests, or a gradebook. It would not be possible to evaluate the students' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, if an administrator were called upon to explain to a parent why a student got a particular grade, the administrator would not have been able to do so. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual dealing with lesson planning and assessment techniques and to prepare two teacher-made tests and to submit all to Coplin for review. The prescription was to be completed by October 30, 1992. By November 13, 1992, Respondent was exhibiting a pattern of excessive and unauthorized absences. The absences were unauthorized because he failed to call the school prior to his absences as required by directives contained in the faculty handbook. He was advised that his absences were adversely impacting the continuity of instruction for his students and the work environment. He was given directives to report his absences directly to the principal, document absences upon return to the worksite, and provide lesson plans and materials for use by the substitute teacher when he was absent. On November 13, 1992, it was noted that Respondent had not met the prescription deadline of October 30, 1992. Coplin gave Respondent a new prescription deadline of November 30, 1992. In addition, she made a supervisory referral to the EAP because of Respondent's excessive absences, unauthorized disappearance from work, poor judgment, and failures to carry out assignments. By the end of November, 1992, Respondent had accumulated 21 absences. While he was absent, there were no gradebook, lesson plans or student folders for the substitute teacher. The substitute teacher was told to create a gradebook, lesson plans, and student work folders. All was in order when Respondent returned to work. On December 11, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, in techniques of instruction, and in assessment techniques. Because his techniques of instruction were also rated unacceptable, Respondent recognized for the first time that his teaching performance was being criticized. He had dismissed the prior criticisms as simply problems with creating a "paper-work trail". Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have a lesson plan. Norniella gave him a chance to turn in the lesson plans the following Monday, but he failed to do so. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he used the same materials and methods for all students regardless of their individual needs. Respondent failed to establish background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing to Norniella. Respondent covered three different subjects (vocabulary, science, and math), all within a period set aside for language arts. Respondent was given a prescription to help correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella on Fridays. He was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another sixth- grade teacher. He was directed to maintain at least two grades per week in each subject for each student. He was also directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual relating to preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. He was directed to complete the prescription by January 15, 1993. He failed to complete any of the prescription activities. On January 4, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his performance and future employment. His absences and reporting procedures were also discussed as was his failure to comply with his prescription and prior directives. During the conference, Respondent was rude, agitated, and disrespectful. He yelled at the principal. His behavior did not reflect credit upon himself and the school system. He treated the conference as a joke. As of January 20, 1993, Respondent still had no gradebook. On January 25, 1993, he was notified that upon his return to the school site, there would be a conference-for-the-record to deal with his noncompliance with the directives to maintain a gradebook and to complete his prescription activities. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on March 3, 1993. It was noted that because of his absences, he had failed to meet the prescription deadline on January 15, 1993. Coplin gave him a new deadline of March 11, 1993. Respondent failed to meet the March 11, 1993, prescription deadline. Moreover, he still had not completed his prior prescription for professional responsibility. Because of these failures, Coplin extended the 1992 professional responsibility prescription through June 1993. On March 26, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. While Respondent had some lesson plans, he did not have one for each subject taught during the day. The student folders contained no tests. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to submit them on Wednesdays for the principal to review. He was also to complete an assessment techniques activity from the TADS prescription manual and was to submit the activity to Coplin for review. His prescription was to be completed by April 23, 1993. On April 1, 1993, Respondent was placed on prescription for professional responsibilities for failure to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and school site policies and directives concerning lesson plans, student assessment, record keeping, and maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans for each subject taught and to submit those to the principal for review. He was directed to read Article X of the Labor Contract and to submit a summary to the principal for review. He was directed to review the section of the faculty handbook concerning maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject and to label the grades. He was directed to maintain a parental conference log in the gradebook. He was directed to submit his gradebook to the principal for weekly review. On May 12, 1993, Coplin advised Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that Respondent had failed to comply with the directive of November 13, 1992, concerning procedures for reporting absences. He had been absent on April 13, 16, 23, 27, and May 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, 1993, without calling the principal in advance. Respondent claims that he called the school secretary at her home before 7:00 a.m. every time he was absent, except for one time. Although the secretary told him he would have to speak directly to the principal, he chose not to call the school when Coplin was there. Calling the secretary does not absolve him from his responsibility to comply with the principal's directive to speak to her personally. On May 19, 1993, Respondent was sent a letter directing him to schedule a conference at OPS. Respondent did not do so. On that same day, Coplin was advised by EAP that EAP was closing Respondent's case due to his noncompliance with the program. Respondent was absent without authorized leave from April 23 - June 17, 1993. Moreover, he had 106 absences for the school year. Nine of these were paid sick leave, and 97 were leave without pay. The school year has 180 student contact days. Because of Respondent's absences and failure to follow leave procedures, Coplin was not able to secure a permanent substitute teacher. Respondent's students were subjected to frequent changes in substitute teachers and a lack of continuity in their education. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Because of Respondent's absences, the usual conference-for-the-record could not be conducted, and Respondent's annual evaluation was sent to him by mail. Respondent failed to complete all prescriptions given him by Coplin and by Norniella. By letter dated June 15, 1992, OPS notified Respondent that he was willfully absent from duty without leave. He was given an opportunity to provide a written response and was advised that failure to do so would result in the termination of his employment. On July 6, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Joyce Annunziata at OPS. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by Petitioner at its meeting of July 7, 1993. During the meeting, Respondent was extremely disoriented, turned his back on Annunziata, did not take the meeting seriously, made irrelevant comments, carried a stuffed purple animal which he talked to and through, and had watery, bloodshot eyes. He also wore his "pocket-knife" to the conference. Petitioner suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against him on July 7, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon 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 dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-27, and 29-56 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 28 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 7-9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 14-16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-13 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
