The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondents' employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Events Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Monroe County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondents David Gootee and Marisa Gootee (hereinafter "Mr. Gootee," "Mrs. Gootee, or "the Gootees") served as cosmetology teachers at Key West High School ("KWHS"). Pursuant to the terms of their professional service contracts, Mr. and Mrs. Gootee were obligated to perform, respectively, 4.8 and 7.5 hours of work each school day; in exchange, the Gootees each received salaries.1/ As established during the final hearing, the School Board offers cosmetology instruction to two distinct populations: "traditional" high school students, who are taught during regular school hours; and individuals enrolled in the School Board's adult education program. From what can be gleaned from the record, it appears that, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, adults who received cosmetology instruction did so separately, and at different times (presumably, in the late afternoon or evening), from traditional high school students. Consequently, the work hours for which the Gootees received salaries, which coincided with KWHS's regular bell schedule, were dedicated exclusively to the instruction of traditional students. In or around 2001, however, John Andola, the School Board's director of adult education, asked the Gootees if they would be willing to furnish instruction to the adult students during normal school hours——i.e., at the same time as the traditional cosmetology students. By all accounts, the presence of the adult students would, and ultimately did, impose additional responsibilities upon the Gootees. For instance, the adult students, who were segregated from the traditional students for part of the day (thereby requiring the Gootees to traverse between the two populations), were tested and issued grades.2/ In exchange for their assumption of these extra burdens, Mr. Andola proposed that, in addition to their existing salaries, the Gootees would each receive three hours of compensation——at a rate of approximately $20 per hour——for every workday, notwithstanding the fact that the Gootees would be spending more than three hours daily with the adult students. (In other words, the hourly pay would be "capped" at three hours per workday.) Of the genuine and reasonable belief that Mr. Andola's proposal was legitimate,3/ the Gootees accepted the offer. Before proceeding further, it is important to make two observations concerning the foregoing compensation arrangement. First, and as confirmed by the final hearing testimony of the School Board's witnesses, it was not unheard of in Monroe County for salaried teachers to receive additional, hourly pay for providing instruction to adult education students.4/ Moreover, the disbursement of hourly pay to the Gootees, a practice that would continue unabated from 2001 through September 2009, was no secret; indeed, the authorization of hourly pay on an "as needed basis" is documented throughout the Gootees' personnel forms, which bear the initials or signatures of various School Board officials, including that of the deputy superintendent.5/ In or around 2007, Monique Acevedo replaced Mr. Andola as the School Board's director of adult education. As Mr. Andola's former secretary, Ms. Acevedo was aware that the Gootees were receiving hourly pay, and there is no dispute that the arrangement continued with her approval. At or about the time of Ms. Acevedo's promotion, the adult education department instituted a requirement that its instructors submit written, weekly timesheets. The timesheets, which indicated that the total hours worked per week for the adult program, were signed by the instructor and delivered to the secretary of the department, who, in turn, forwarded the document to Ms. Acevedo for approval. Thereafter, an office manager entered the hours into a computer system, which could then be viewed by the payroll department.6/ Notably, the adult education timesheets related only to the hourly work performed in connection with that particular program; that is, the forms were not intended to document the time spent by salaried instructors in connection with their contractual work responsibilities. Consistent with these procedures, and over the next several years, the Gootees submitted written timesheets to the adult education department. In accordance with the three-hour cap (put in place by Mr. Andola, and continued by Ms. Acevedo), the Gootees billed three hours per day, for a total of 15 hours weekly, on their timesheets. For informational and non-billing purposes only, the Gootees also indicated on the timesheets the span of time in which they were on campus and in the presence of adult students. Specifically, Ms. Gootee typically recorded times of 8:15 a.m. through 3:45 p.m., while Mr. Gootee, who worked a shorter day, generally notated 8:15 a.m. or 8:30 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. However, it must be emphasized, once again, that these ranges, which were recorded solely on the adult timesheets, were not intended to reflect the amount of time the Gootees spent in connection with their salaried, contractual work. (For those duties, KWHS teachers, including the Gootees, were required to sign in and out of the workplace in a separate, daily log.)7/ Subsequently, in late March or early April of 2009, the School Board terminated Ms. Acevedo's employment. At that time, and on an interim basis, Jeff Arnott assumed Ms. Acevedo's duties as the director of the adult education program. Over the next five months, the Gootees continued to submit their weekly timesheets, which Mr. Arnott approved.8/ Thereafter, in September 2009, Mr. Arnott was appointed as the director of the adult education program on a permanent basis, at which point he gained access to the School Board's master schedule. From his examination of the schedule, Mr. Arnott learned that the Gootees' work for the adult program occurred during regular school hours, as opposed to some other time period that did not coincide with their salaried work schedule. Concerned with the "overlap" in the hours, Mr. Arnott immediately inquired of the Gootees (both of whom enjoyed excellent reputations as professionals, a point Mr. Arnott conceded at hearing), who explained, correctly, that the arrangement had been ongoing for years with the approval of the prior directors.9/ Nevertheless, Mr. Arnott reported the issue to the superintendent of schools, culminating in the initiation of the instant proceeding. As noted earlier, the School Board called only two witnesses in this matter: Mr. Arnott, who had no involvement in the adult education department until 2009, some eight years after the Gootees began receiving the hourly pay; and Debra Henriquez, an employee in the School Board's payroll department. Through Ms. Henriquez' testimony, the School Board attempted to establish that the payroll department was unaware of the overlap in the Gootees' hours——an arrangement the witness opines was improper——until September 2009. The School Board fails to recognize, however, that Ms. Henriquez' knowledge of the situation10/ and her view of its legitimacy are of no moment; the issue, as framed by the Complaints, is whether the Gootees, in accepting the hourly compensation, acted with dishonest or fraudulent intent. It is concluded, for the reasons explained below, that the Gootees did not act with such intent. Contrary to the School Board's suggestion, this is not a situation where an educator committed an obvious and indefensible act of impropriety, such as accepting bribes for inflating grades, helping students cheat on the FCAT, or stealing money from the lunchroom cash register——behavior that could not be legitimately defended on the basis that it occurred with a supervisor's encouragement or approval. Here, the director of the adult program, an individual tasked with utilizing adult education funds,11/ offered the Gootees extra pay (approximately $10,000 each per school year, a sum that is hardly conscience shocking) in exchange for their assumption of additional duties; that the work with the adults occurred during regular school hours does not change this fact, nor does it compel a rejection of the Gootees' credible and reasonable testimony that they believed in the arrangement's propriety. This is particularly so in the absence of any evidence that the Gootees' professional services contracts obligated them to accept the adult education students without any corresponding increase in compensation. Finally, the undersigned rejects the School Board's contention that the Gootees' notations on their weekly, adult education timesheets were somehow fraudulent or dishonest. Notably, the entries recorded on the forms accurately reflected the spans of time, during regular school hours, in which the Gootees instructed the adult students——i.e., there is no evidence that the Gootees attempted to conceal the "overlap" by recording time periods when they were not dealing with the adult students, such as after the normal school day or during the evening. Indeed, that the timesheet entries plainly indicated the existence of an overlap only further supports the Gootees' credible testimony that they believed in the arrangement's legitimacy. Determinations of Ultimate Fact It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondents are not guilty of failing to maintain honesty in their professional dealings. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondents are not guilty of submitting fraudulent information on documents connected with their professional dealings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board enter a final order: dismissing the administrative complaints; immediately reinstating Respondents' employment; and awarding Respondents any lost salary and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 4th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a school monitor on the grounds alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed September 5, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4B of Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Petitioner employed Respondent as a school security monitor and assigned her to work at Horace Mann, which is a public school located within the school district of Miami-Dade County, and, as will be discussed below, to a temporary duty location. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. Respondent’s employment with Petitioner began on April 12, 1993. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) collective bargaining unit. On October 22, 2001, Metro-Dade Police arrested Respondent on charges of aggravated battery and violation of probation. Respondent remained incarcerated from the date of her arrest until May 15, 2002. Respondent admitted that she had engaged in a fight while she was on probation and that she had thereby violated the terms of her probation. Respondent did not report to work between October 22, 2001, and May 15, 2002. Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner dated December 3, 2001, and addressed "to whom it may concern." The letter reflects that Respondent had previously entered a plea to a charge of domestic violence for which she had been placed on probation. It also reflected that that she was in jail after violating the conditions of her probation by having engaged in a fight. Respondent's letter represented that she would be released from jail on February 4, 2002, and makes it clear that she wanted to retain her employment, if possible. Carolyn Blake was the principal of Horace Mann at the times material to this proceeding. Ms. Blake learned of Respondent’s arrest within days of its occurrence. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Blake forwarded her home telephone number to Respondent and sent Respondent a message to call her collect from jail so that she and Respondent could discuss Respondent’s employment intentions. On December 26, 2001, Respondent placed a collect call to Ms. Blake at Ms. Blake’s home. Ms. Blake accepted the collect call from Respondent. During the ensuing telephone conversation Respondent told Ms. Blake that she would be released from jail by February 4, 2002, and that she hoped to return to work. Ms. Blake told Respondent she should consider resigning from her employment with Petitioner because of the number of days she had been absent without authorized leave. On January 14, 2002, Ms. Blake attempted to communicate with Respondent through a memorandum sent to Respondent's home address. The memorandum reflected that Respondent had been absent from her worksite since October 19, 2001, and that the absences had impeded the effective operation of the worksite. The memorandum requested that Respondent select from among four options and to notify her worksite within three days of the date of the notice regarding her employment intentions. The four options were to (1) notify the worksite of the date she intended to return to work; (2) apply for leave of absence; (3) resign; or (4) retire. The January 14, 2002, memorandum, further advised Respondent that her absences would continue to be unauthorized until she communicated directly with Ms. Blake as to her employment intentions. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. On March 11, 2002, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record (CFR) scheduled for March 28, 2002, at the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to address, among other things, Respondent’s arrest; her violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct; her excessive absenteeism; and her future employment status with Petitioner. The notice that instructed Respondent to attend the CFR was mailed to Respondent's home address. On March 28, 2002, Respondent was still incarcerated, and she did not attend the scheduled CFR scheduled for that day at OPS. On March 28, 2002, a CFR was held at OPS in Respondent’s absence. At the CFR held on March 28, 2002, Respondent’s employment history with the School Board was reviewed, including the number of days that Respondent had been absent from her worksite, with special emphasis on the number of days she had been absent without authorized leave. On March 28, 2002, Ms. Blake recommended that Respondent’s employment with the School Board be terminated due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and because of the adverse impact Respondent’s absenteeism was having on the operation of the school site. As of March 28, 2002, Ms. Blake had received no communication from Respondent since their telephone conversation on December 26, 2001. Despite having Ms. Blake’s home telephone number and knowing that she would accept a collect call, Respondent made no effort to contact Ms. Blake after Respondent learned that she would not be released from jail on February 4, 2002. By notice dated April 23, 2002, Respondent was directed to appear on May 8, 2002, at a meeting at OPS to address the employment action that had been recommended by Ms. Blake. This written directive was sent by mail to Respondent's home address. As of May 8, 2002, Respondent was still incarcerated. Because of her incarceration, Respondent did not attend the meeting and had not reported to her worksite. On May 8, 2002, the scheduled meeting was held at OPS. As a result of the meeting, the Superintendent recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment and scheduled the recommendation to be considered by the School Board at its meeting of June 19, 2002. On May 16, 2002, the day after she was released from jail on May 15, 2002, Respondent called Ms. Blake, who instructed her to meet with an administrator at the regional office. Respondent complied with that directive and was ordered by the administrator to report to an alternative work site pending the School Board’s action on the recommendation to terminate her employment. Respondent refused to comply with the order to report to an alternate worksite because she did not want to jeopardize her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. From October 22, 2001, through May 15, 2002, Respondent was incarcerated and was absent from work without authority. From May 16, 2002, through June 19, 2002, Respondent was absent without authority and either failed or refused to report to work. For the school year 2001-2002, Respondent accumulated 142 unauthorized absences. On June 19, 2002, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the following grounds: excessive absenteeism and/or abandonment of position; willful neglect of duty; and violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct. Respondent’s family received Ms. Blake’s memorandum and the notices of scheduled meetings that were mailed by Petitioner to Respondent’s home address while Respondent was incarcerated. Respondent testified that she did not see the memorandum and notices until after she was released from jail. There was no justification for Respondent’s failure to contact Ms. Blake after Respondent learned she would not be released from jail on February 4, 2002. There was no justification for Respondent's failure to attempt to comply with Petitioner's leave policies. There was no justification for Respondent’s refusal to report to the alternate worksite as instructed by the administrator at the regional office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of act and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of excessive absenteeism, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty as alleged in Counts I and II of the Notice of Specific Charges. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain Respondent's suspension without pay and terminate her employment as a school monitor. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Lontay Finney's employment with Palm Beach County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Finney started his employment with the School Board on December 19, 2005. He was employed pursuant to an annual contract. Finney taught at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") from 2010 through 2015. He was last employed as both a science teacher and assistant athletic director. Finney's annual evaluations were acceptable and effective during each year of his employment at Glades Central. As a teacher, Finney was expected to comply with the Code of Ethics. On June 1, 2010, he signed an acknowledgment that he received training, read, and would abide by School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics. Reniqua Morgan ("Morgan") was a female student at Glades Central from 2011 to 2015. She was a cheerleader athlete but never had Finney as a teacher. Finney knew of Morgan as one of the daughters of his teacher colleague, Renee Johnson Atkins ("Atkins") and from seeing Morgan around school. Morgan and Finney also knew who each other were because they had a niece in common and lived in the small town of Belle Glade. However, Finney and Morgan did not associate with one another directly before March 2015. On or about March 22, 2015, Finney initiated contact, reaching out to Morgan by poking her on Facebook. Morgan poked him back and then Finney followed up by inboxing her next. Morgan was surprised that Finney was conversing with her. They continued to chat for several weeks not on an open feed of Facebook but messaging each other's inbox privately. Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 12, 2015, Finney initiated a conversation with Morgan and they chatted on Facebook. Finney suggested that the two of them get together and asked Morgan, do you want to "chill?" Morgan agreed and said "I don't mind." They then decided to meet up. Finney did not offer to pick Morgan up at her house. Finney instructed her to meet him at the stop sign, around the corner and down the street from where she lived.1/ Morgan, unbeknownst to her mother, met Finney by the stop sign. At the stop sign, Morgan got in Finney's mother's truck with Finney. When Finney first made contact with Morgan that night, he gave her a hug. He then drove her to his home. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Morgan was a 17-year-old minor. Finney did not have permission from Morgan's parents to either pick her up or take her to his house. His inappropriate actions were outside of school and not in connection with any school-related activity in any way. At approximately 12:24 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015, Morgan's mother, Atkins, was at her residence and went to use the restroom and she then discovered that Morgan was not at home. Morgan had left home without her permission. Atkins was worried about Morgan being out that early in the morning because it was "unsafe because [of] the neighborhood that [she] live[d] in, there [were] some people in that neighborhood that [were] unsafe."2/ While at Finney's house, Finney and Morgan remained in the parked truck alongside of the house alone together for approximately an hour and a half to two hours and spent some of the time talking and scrolling through Netflix on Finney's phone. Neither Morgan nor Finney can recall the name of any of the movies they watched on Netflix. Morgan's mother was looking for Morgan and found out from Bethanie Woodson ("Woodson"), Morgan's friend, that her daughter was with Finney. Atkins took Woodson with her and drove to Finney's house looking for Morgan. While in the truck with Finney, Morgan's friend contacted her and let her know that her mother was looking for her. Morgan told Finney she needed to go home. Atkins also learned while at Finney's house that Morgan was on the way home, so she got back in her vehicle and returned home. Morgan told Finney to drop her off near the railroad track, which is not the same place he picked her up. He then dropped her off where she suggested near Avenue A, a neighborhood on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from where Morgan lived, and several blocks away from her home. After Finney dropped Morgan off in the early school day morning while it was dark outside, Morgan had to walk down the street, come through the neighborhood and then walk across the bushy railroad tracks to get to her residence. The foot path Morgan took was also unlit, grassy, and rocky near the train tracks. No streetlights were near the tracks.3/ When Morgan got home, her mother, sister, and Woodson were waiting for her. Morgan's mother was irate that Morgan had been with Finney and drove Morgan back to Finney's home to address his actions with her daughter. Finney lived with his parents. When Atkins knocked on the door, Finney's father came to the door and Atkins requested to see Finney. Atkins confronted him angrily and berated him for being a teacher, picking up Morgan, and taking her to his house at that hour of the night. Atkins also informed Finney's mother what occurred while she was at their house. Morgan and Finney have had no contact since the incident. Morgan's mother reported the incident to Glades Central. As a result, the principal assigned Finney to his residence by letter, with pay, starting April 13, 2015, pending the investigation or notification of a change in assignment in writing. On April 15, 2015, Finney was assigned to temporary duty at Transportation Services pending investigation. An investigation by the school police found no violation of a criminal law by Finney, and the case was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, which is charged with conducting investigations into alleged violations of School Board policy. On or about May 11, 2015, the Office of Professional Standards opened an administrative investigation. Dianna Weinbaum ("Weinbaum"), now director of Office of Professional Standards and former human resources manager, was assigned to investigate the matter. Around the time the investigation was being conducted, Finney deactivated his Facebook page due to the mostly negative comments and statuses, as well as rumors surrounding the incident of him picking up Morgan and taking her to his house. Finney was able to finish the school year working back at Glades Central between investigations. Weinbaum performed a thorough and complete investigation regarding the allegations against Respondent. She interviewed all the witnesses and obtained statements, as well as visited the locations where Finney picked up and dropped off Morgan. On August 4, 2015, consistent with District policy, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned from his teaching position back to a temporary duty location again. On October 8, 2015, a pre-determination meeting was held with the director of the Office of Professional Standards and Finney, who was represented by counsel regarding the interactions between Finney and Morgan. Finney was provided a copy of the investigative file. At the end of the investigation, it was determined that Finney's actions were both an inappropriate relationship with Morgan and posed a clear threat to Morgan's health, safety and welfare. Weinbaum recommended discipline for Finney consistent with discipline received by other employees based on the superintendent and School Board's position that employees who engage in inappropriate relationships with students and who endanger the health, welfare and safety of a child will be terminated. On November 19, 2015, Petitioner notified Finney of the superintendent's recommendation for termination of his employment at the School Board Meeting set for December 9, 2015. The School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation and voted to suspend Finney for 15 days and thereafter terminate his employment. Finney timely requested a hearing to contest the superintendent's recommendation. Finney's disciplinary history does not include any discipline for actions similar to these for which suspension and termination are recommended. Petitioner charged Finney by Petition with soliciting an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare. The Petition charged Finney with the following violations: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c),(2)(f) Commitment to the Student Principle 1; 3.02(4)(a)(b)(d)(e),(g); 3.02 5(a),(a)(iii),(a)(v),(a)(vii); Code of Ethics; 1.013(1) and (4), Responsibilities of School district Personnel and Staff; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27, Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal, and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article II, Section M; and (C) Rule 6A-5.056 (2)(a),(b) and (4) F.A.C., Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal; 6A-10.081 (3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C.; 6A-10.080(1),(2) and (3) F.A.C. Code of Ethics for the Education Profession of Florida; and 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(h) F.A.C. Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. During the final hearing in this matter, Finney testified that his decision to drive Morgan to his house "was a lapse in judgment and it was just a bad decision that I made." At hearing, the testimony and exhibits established that Finney initiated contact with Morgan and solicited an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing charges of violations of policies 0.01(2)6., 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); 5(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii); 1.013(4); and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) and (h); finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.081(3)(a), policies 0.01(2)3., 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii), as charged; and upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 4th day of January, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a school custodian based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed June 21, 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public education within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Section 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a custodian at Miami Edison Middle School (Miami Edison) and Horace Mann. Both schools are public schools located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On May 16, 2001, Petitioner voted to suspend Respondent's employment as a school custodian and to terminate that employment. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system who is employed as a teacher assistant, an education paraprofessional, a member of the transportation department, a member of the operations department, a member of the maintenance department, a member of food service, a secretary, or a clerical employee, or any other person who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. Respondent is a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME). AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (the Agreement) that includes provisions for the discipline of unit members. Article II of the Agreement provides that Petitioner may discipline or discharge any employee for just cause. Article XI of the Agreement provides specified due process rights for unit members. Petitioner has provided Respondent those due process rights in this proceeding. Article XI of the Agreement provides for progressive discipline of covered employees, but also provides that ". . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employees [sic] record. " Article XI, Section 4C of the Agreement provides that employment may be terminated at any time for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. On February 6, 1996, Respondent was issued a memorandum from the principal of Miami Edison involving Respondent's use of profanity in the presence of students. In the memorandum, the principal directed Respondent not to use profanity on school grounds. On May 21, 1998, Respondent, Mark Wilder, Clarence Strong, and a student were in the cafeteria of Horace Mann preparing for a fund raising activity. Respondent spouted profanities directed towards Mr. Wilder and threatened him with a mop handle. Respondent feigned a swing of the mop handle, causing Mr. Wilder to reasonably fear he was about to be struck by the mop handle. Mr. Wilder had done nothing to provoke Respondent. Mr. Strong knew Respondent and was able to defuse the situation. Mr. Wilder reported the incident to Senetta Carter, the principal of Horace Mann when the incident occurred. Ms. Carter reported the incident to Petitioner's director of region operations. Respondent received a copy of the School Board rule prohibiting violence in the workplace. After investigation, the school police substantiated a charge of assault against Respondent. On March 15, 1999, Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards held a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent pertaining to the incident with Mr. Wilder. Respondent was specifically directed to refrain from using improper language and from displaying any action that another person could interpret as being a physical threat. On October 25, 2000, during the evening shift, Respondent physically assaulted William McIntyre and Noel Chambers while all three men were working as custodians at Horace Mann. Respondent shouted profanities towards both men, threatened them, and violently grabbed them by their shirt collars. Respondent punched Mr. McIntyre in the area of his chest and broke a chain Mr. Chambers wore around his neck. Mr. Chambers and Mr. McIntyre reported the incident to Robin Hechler, an assistant principal at Horace Mann. Respondent came to Ms. Hechler's office while she was interviewing Mr. McIntyre about the incident. When Ms. Hechler attempted to close the door to her office so she could talk to Mr. McIntyre in private, Respondent put his hand out as if to move Ms. Hechler out of his way. Ms. Hechler told Respondent not to touch her and instructed him to wait outside her office. Ms. Hechler later told Respondent to come in her office so she could interview him. Respondent was acting irrationally. Ms. Hechler told him if he could not control himself she would call the school police. Respondent replied that was fine and walked out of her office. Ms. Hechler reported the incident to the school police, who ordered Respondent to leave the premises. Following the incident, neither Mr. Chambers nor Mr. McIntyre wanted to work with Respondent because they were afraid of him. In response to the incident involving Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Chambers, the principal of Horace Mann referred Respondent to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program on November 2, 2000. Respondent's shift was changed so he would not be working with Mr. Chambers or Mr. McIntyre. On November 7, 2000, Respondent attacked J. C., a student at Horace Mann, in the cafeteria area of Horace Mann to punish J. C. for something Respondent thought J. C. had said or done. Respondent shouted profanities towards J. C. and choked his neck. J. C. was very upset and injured by Respondent's attack. Respondent was arrested on November 7, 2000, on the offense of battery on a student. On February 21, 2001, he was adjudicated guilty of that offense, placed on probation for six months and ordered to attend an anger control class. Respondent was also ordered to have no contact with J. C. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, prohibiting violence in the workplace, provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public Schools [sic] employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence will not be tolerated. School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07, provides that corporal punishment is strictly prohibited. Respondent's attack on J. C. constituted corporal punishment. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, provides as following pertaining to employee conduct: I. Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, 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 workplace is expressly prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Ferguson 7155 Northwest 17th Avenue, No. 9 Miami, Florida 33147 John A. Greco, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended and dismissed from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was 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, Ms. Woods was employed as a paraprofessional with the School Board. At the time of hearing, Ms. Woods had been a paraprofessional with the School Board for 19 years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Woods was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and was subject to the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement between UTD and the Miami-Dade County Public Schools (UTD Contract). At all times material hereto, Ms. Woods was assigned as a paraprofessional to Robert Renick Education Center (Robert Renick). She was assigned to assist Alexander Phillips, who is an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher, in an ESE class. Robert Renick is a school for ESE students. All of the students are emotionally, behaviorally disturbed, and some have additional disabilities. They are dually diagnosed with autism and as educable mentally handicapped and trainable mentally handicapped. Since the 2004-2005 school year, Fred Clermont has been employed at Robert Renick as an ESE teacher. Prior to October 18, 2007, one of Mr. Clermont’s students had hit one of the staff members at Robert Renick. Mr. Clermont testified that, after the incident, Ms. Woods told him that, if one of his students ever hit her, she would “fuck [him (Mr. Clermont)] up.” Mr. Clermont’s testimony is found to be credible. On October 18, 2007, at the time of school dismissal for Robert Renick, Mr. Clermont was escorting one of his students, A. F., who was nonverbal, to the flagpole, a common area for students, whose bus was late, to wait. Because the student was hitting himself and Mr. Clermont and was spitting and kicking, Mr. Clermont shouted for everyone to move back and clear a path through which he (Mr. Clermont) could bring the student. Students and staff were moving out of the way; however, Ms. Woods did not. A. F. struck Ms. Woods in the back or shoulder area. Mr. Clermont testified that Ms. Woods turned around, pushing A. F. to the ground, and struck him (Mr. Clermont) in the chest. Mr. Clermont immediately apologized to Ms. Woods for A. F. hitting her. Mr. Clermont testified that Ms. Woods responded to his apology by shouting obscenities at him and reminding him of what she told him earlier as to what she would do if one of his students ever hit her. Mr. Clermont’s testimony is found to be credible. The student, A. F., became further upset, got out of his harness, and struck another staff member, David Jefferson, Dean of Discipline. Mr. Clermont and Mr. Jefferson were able to bring A. F. under control by holding him down and calming him. Mr. Clermont further testified that, as he was getting up from holding A. F. down, he (Mr. Clermont) was hit on the side of his face by Ms. Wood; that the blow knocked his (Mr. Clermont’s) sunglasses off his face and one of his contact lens out of his eye; and that Ms. Woods was shouting obscenities at him (Mr. Clermont)—“Yeah, mother fucker, I told you I would hit your mother fucking ass. I told you, bitch . . . .” Additionally, Mr. Clermont testified that Ms. Woods looked at her cellular telephone and declared that they were off the clock and he (Mr. Clermont) was going to get his “ass whupped now”; and that she kicked-off her shoes and earrings and lunged at him, only to be held back by Mr. Phillips. A. F. was later placed safely on his bus. Mr. Clermont’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Jefferson testified at the hearing. He testified that, when Mr. Clermont requested persons to move and make a path through which he (Mr. Clermont) could bring A. F., Ms. Woods stated that she was not moving and that, if that “retarded mother fucker hit me, I’m going to hit your punk ass”— referring to Mr. Clermont. Mr. Jefferson further testified that he witnessed Ms. Woods punch Mr. Clermont in the chest and that Mr. Clermont apologized to Ms. Woods. Additionally, Mr. Jefferson testified that, after he and Mr. Clermont were able to restrain A. F., Ms. Woods hit Mr. Clermont in the face, knocking his (Mr. Clermont’s) sunglasses off; that Ms. Woods looked at her cellular telephone and indicated the time, as no longer being within the work day; that Ms. Woods kicked-off her shoes and removed her earrings; and that Ms. Woods was restrained by Mr. Phillips. Mr. Jefferson did not testify that he observed Ms. Woods strike or push the student. Mr. Jefferson’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Phillips testified at hearing. At the time of the incident on October 18, 2007, he was standing next to Ms. Woods. He testified that he observed Ms. Woods strike Mr. Clermont twice, look at her watch, indicating that the work day had ended, and kick-off her shoes. Mr. Phillips further testified that he grabbed Ms. Woods because she was a good paraprofessional and he did not want to get into trouble. Mr. Phillips did not testify that he observed Ms. Woods strike or push the student. Mr. Phillips testimony is found to be credible. Bernadette Adams, a paraprofessional at Robert Renick, testified at the hearing. She was also standing next to Ms. Woods at the time of the incident on October 18, 2007. Ms. Adams testified that she did not observe Ms. Woods push or strike the student. Ms. Adams also testified that she heard Ms. Woods express to Mr. Clermont that she (Ms. Woods) told him would happen if the “autie mother fucker . . . .” hit her and that she (Ms. Woods) was going to “hit [his] punk ass.” Further, Ms. Adams testified that she observed Ms. Woods’ arm come down, kick off her shoes, and indicate to Mr. Clermont that they were off the clock. Furthermore, Ms. Adams testified that Mr. Clermont responded to Ms. Woods by asking Ms. Woods whether she (Ms. Woods) was “fucking crazy.” Ms. Adams left the scene of the incident. Ms. Adams’ testimony is found to be credible. Shayon Tresvant, the indoor suspension teacher at Robert Renick, testified at the hearing. At the time of the incident on October 18, 2007, he was assisting with dismissal and was approximately 10 or 11 feet from Mr. Clermont and Ms. Woods. Mr. Tresvant did not observe Ms. Woods strike or push the student; however, he did observe Ms. Woods acting in an aggressive manner towards Mr. Clermont. Additionally, Mr. Tresvant heard Mr. Clermont ask Ms. Woods why she had hit him (Mr. Clermont) and Ms. Woods mention the timeframe or the time of the day. Mr. Tresvant testimony is found to be credible. Ms. Woods testified at hearing. She admits that she observed Mr. Clermont having problems controlling and calming down student A. F. Ms. Woods testified that she felt a punch or hit to her arm and turned around and, in turning around, that she may have struck the student, but, that, if she did, it was not intentional. Taking into consideration the testimony of other witnesses at hearing, Ms. Woods’ testimony, regarding the striking of A. F., is found to be credible. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Woods did not intentionally strike the student A. F. Further, Ms. Woods testified that she requested Mr. Clermont to get the student under control and that she observed Mr. Clermont laughing. As a result, Ms. Woods testified that she concluded that Mr. Clermont was joking with her and playfully punched him and told him to “stop playing.” Ms. Woods’ testimony is not found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Woods testified that, after Mr. Clermont and Mr. Jefferson got the student under control and on the bus, she (Ms. Woods’) touched Mr. Clermont’s neck in a playful manner and that Mr. Clermont began screaming and cursing at her. Ms. Woods testified that she vocally objected to Mr. Clermont raising his voice to her, looked at her watch and indicated that they were not off work until 3:50 p.m., and told Mr. Clermont not to “play with her.” Also, Ms. Woods testified that, at no time, did she intentionally strike Mr. Clermont. Ms. Woods’ testimony is not found to be credible. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Woods intentionally struck Mr. Clermont. After placing the student A. F. on the bus, Mr. Clermont reported the incident with Ms. Woods to the principal of Robert Renick, Allison Harley, Ed.D. While reporting the incident to Dr. Harley, Mr. Clermont was highly emotional, distraught, and “crying.” At that time, Mr. Clermont was not certain of the action that he wanted to take. The following day, October 19, 2007, Mr. Clermont indicated to Dr. Harley that he wanted to report the incident to the school police. He prepared a written statement, which was witnessed by Dr. Harley. On October 19, 2007, Mr. Clermont was referred to a Workers’ Compensation physician. Mr. Clermont was diagnosed with a skull contusion. On October 19, 2007, Mr. Clermont made a formal complaint to the school police. The procedure for employee investigations is set forth in the School Board’s Personnel Investigative Model (PIM), which has been adopted by the UTD. Pursuant to the PIM, once an allegation is made, the site administrator (here, the principal, Dr. Harley) contacts the school police. Additionally, the accused employee is notified verbally of allegations within 24 hours and in writing within 48 hours. Further, pursuant to the PIM, as to investigations which may lead to suspension or dismissal of an employee, only the Superintendent or the Superintendent’s designee may authorize the investigation. When an officer of the school police is assigned to investigate the allegation(s), the officer meets with the complainant, interviews witnesses, and generates a report, referred to as a lead sheet. For a criminal allegation, the school police’s General Investigative Unit (GIU) maintains the lead sheet, conducts the investigation, and presents the lead sheet to the State Attorney’s Office. At the conclusion of the investigation, the accused employee is notified of the outcome of the investigation; forwarded a copy of the investigative report; advised of his or her right to request a supplemental report; and given five days to file written exceptions, which could possibly change the outcome of the investigation. On October 19, 2007, when the incident was reported to the school police and which was a Friday, Dr. Harley was not able to verbally notify Ms. Woods because Ms. Woods was not at Robert Renick; she was absent. On Monday, October 22, 2007, Dr. Harley notified Ms. Woods verbally of the allegations. By letter, dated October 22, 2007, Dr. Harley notified Ms. Woods in writing of the allegations, identifying, among other things, the case number, the complainant, and the nature of the complaint, which was “simple battery.” By her signature, Ms. Woods acknowledged that she received the written notice; and by dating the written notice, indicated that she (Ms. Woods) received the written notice on October 23, 2007. Pending the outcome of the investigation, Ms. Woods was removed from Robert Renick. She was placed on paid administrative placement in an alternate assignment at FDLRS- South. Detective Rafael Gomez was assigned to and did conduct the investigation regarding the complaint against Ms. Woods. The Superintendent’s designee who authorizes investigations which may lead to suspension or dismissal of an employee is the Assistant Superintendent for the Office of Professional Standards (OPS). The lead sheet indicates that Officer Michael Alexander assigned the investigation to Detective Gomez and authorized Detective Gomez to perform the investigation. By letter dated October 26, 2007, the School Police notified Ms. Woods, among other things, that a criminal investigation was being conducted, that the complainant was Mr. Clermont, that the nature of the complaint was “Battery on [a] School Employee,” and that she would have an opportunity to provide a formal statement, but that she had a right to decline to give a formal statement. Ms. Woods declined to give a formal statement on the advice of counsel. Having completed the investigation, Detective Gomez determined that probable cause existed to support the allegation that Ms. Woods violated School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment-Prohibited and 6Gx13-4-1.08, Violence in the Workplace. The investigative report was submitted by GIU to OPS. By letter dated November 9, 2007, OPS notified Ms. Woods, among other things, that probable cause was found as a result of the investigation, simultaneously providing a copy of the investigative report, and that she had an opportunity, within five days to submit written exceptions. Ms. Woods acknowledged receipt of the letter on November 13, 2007, by signing and dating the letter. Subsequently, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) is held with the affected employee by OPS to provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to allegations. At the conclusion of the CFR, the affected employee is informed that the case will be presented to the Assistant Superintendent of OPS and the employee’s site supervisors to obtain a recommendation for disciplinary action. A summary of the CFR is forwarded to the affected employee and the affected employee is advised within the summary that he/she has a right to append any additional information that was not included in the summary. Prior to School Board action, a meeting is held with the affected employee, during which he/she is verbally notified of the recommended disciplinary action and of his/her right to request a hearing after the School Board takes official action. On December 7, 2007, a CFR was held with Ms. Woods by OPS to discuss the finding of probable cause and her future employment with the School Board. In addition to Ms. Woods, attendees at the CFR included, among others, Ana Rasco, Ed.D., Administrative Director of OPS; Will Gordillo, Assistant Superintendent, Division of Special Education; Sonja Clay, Executive Director, Division of Special Education; Dr. Harley; and members of UTD, Sherri Daniels, UTD Union Representative, and Joy Jackson, UTD Steward, Robert Renick. During the CFR, Ms. Woods stated that she did not intend to strike the student A. F., and that she was attempting to avoid being struck by A. F. when she allegedly struck him. Additionally, during the CFR, Ms. Woods was provided information regarding the options of resignation or retirement, but she declined to exercise either one of the options. At the conclusion of the CFR, the recommendation was to terminate Ms. Woods. A summary of the CFR was prepared and a copy was provided to Ms. Woods. Even though Dr. Harley had written favorable recommendations on Ms. Woods’ behalf prior to the incident, she (Dr. Harley) still agreed with the recommendation made at the CFR meeting. Dr. Harley testified at hearing that no such incident had occurred at the time that she wrote the recommendations; that violence in the workplace could not be tolerated; that staff was teaching children not to be aggressive; and that staff must exhibit what they teach. Dr. Harley’s testimony is found to be credible. By memorandum dated January 29, 2008, Maria Rojas, Associate Superintendent of OPS, advised Dr. Rudolph Crew, Superintendent of Schools, among other things, of the allegations, the investigation, and the finding of probable cause. Ms. Rojas’ recommendation was to suspend Ms. Woods employment with the School Board, without pay, and to begin dismissal proceedings against Ms. Woods, effective at the close of the workday on March 12, 2008. By memorandum dated February 22, 2008, Ms. Woods was directed to attend a meeting at OPS on February 26, 2008, to address the recommendation to be made at the School Board meeting on March 12, 2008. She was notified at the meeting on February 26, 2008, that termination of her employment would be recommended at the School Board meeting. By letter dated February 27, 2008, Ms. Woods was provided written notification that, at the School Board meeting on March 12, 2008, the Superintendent of Schools would recommend suspension, without pay, and the initiation of dismissal proceedings against her for just cause for, not only the two original violations, but, also, for violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics. OPS prepared an agenda School Board item for the School Board meeting being held on March 12, 2008, regarding the recommended action against Ms. Woods. The agenda item, among other things, quoted verbatim the information contained in the letter dated February 27, 2008. OPS did not provide Ms. Woods a copy of the agenda item. The standard operating procedure of OPS is to not provide a copy of such agenda item to the affected employee. At its meeting on March 12, 2008, the School Board accepted the recommendation and took action to suspend Ms. Woods and to initiate dismissal proceedings against her from all employment with it. The School Board’s decision was based upon the violations set forth in the agenda item. Ms. Woods timely protested the action taken by the School Board and requested an administrative hearing. On May 5, 2008, the School Board filed in the instant matter a Notice of Specific Charges. Ms. Woods was served a copy of the Notice of Specific Charges. As a result of the allegations against Ms. Woods, she was arrested. She was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors, but, at the time of the CFR, only one misdemeanor remained, with “no action” being taken on the other charges. Ms. Woods pled no contest to the remaining misdemeanor charge, with the court, among other things, withholding adjudication and placing her on probation. Additionally, the court entered a Stay Away Order, Non-Domestic Violence against Ms. Woods on behalf of Mr. Clermont and the student A. F. Ms. Woods has not been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the School Board. The evidence demonstrates that, prior to the incident on October 18, 2007, Ms. Woods was perceived by the principal and assistant principal at Robert Renick as an outstanding and effective paraprofessional. The evidence also demonstrates that, prior to the incident on October 18, 2007, Ms. Woods had never been engaged in physical contact with a student or co-worker.
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 suspending Monique S. Woods without pay from March 12, 2008, through the end of the 2008-2009 school term and under other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment on the grounds stated in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner since 1995. At all time material hereto, Respondent was a data input specialist at Miami Carol City Adult Education Center (Carol City), Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick), Petitioner's Office of Exceptional Student Education and Psychological Services (ESE Office), or assigned to a paid alternative placement at her residence. Miami Carol City Adult Education Center Respondent began part-time work at Carol City around 1995. Her work was satisfactory at first. Once she began full- time employment, her work declined. The work hours at Carol City are 2:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m., Mondays through Thursdays, and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., on Fridays. From July 1996 through June 1997, Respondent had a pattern of absences that adversely impacted the education and work environment, particularly the effective operation of Carol City's office. Respondent had been absent for 44 days, six of which were unauthorized leave without pay. On May 21, 1997, Respondent was directed to comply with work requests from her assistant principal and was warned that failure to do so was insubordination. On June 12, 1997, Respondent was directed to arrive at work on time. On June 13, 1997, Respondent, along with staff, was directed to follow sign in/out procedures. On June 24, 1997, Respondent was referred to Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Respondent refused to sign the referral document. On June 25, 1997, Respondent was given the following directives: (1) communicate intent to be absent or tardy directly to the principal or designee; and (2) document absences for illness with a written medical note from Respondent's treating physician, presented to the principal or designee. Respondent was warned that future absences would be reported as unauthorized leave without pay until Respondent provided the required documentation and that non-compliance with these directives would be considered a violation of Respondent's professional responsibilities. On June 26, 1997, Respondent refused to work on a priority work assignment as directed by her assistant principal. Further, Respondent typed a non-work related memo during work hours. Respondent failed to comply with the principal's directives to stop and not xerox it. In addition, Respondent took a half-day off without obtaining permission from her principal. On June 27, 1997, Carol City's registrar complained that Respondent refused to do what the register asked her to do. On June 30, 1997, Respondent removed folders from the assistant principal's desk without permission. On July 2, 1997, Respondent was typing non-work related material during work hours. Respondent was directed not to do this. On July 7, 1997, Respondent again did non-work related activity, taking down the principal's conversation with another worker, during work hours. On July 11, 1997 a Conference-for-the-Record (CFR) was held with Respondent to address Respondent's insubordination, excessive tardiness, and absences, off-task time, and her failure to follow office procedures, directives, and the chain of command, including, but not limited to dates on or about May 21, 1997 through July 7, 1997. At the July 11, 1997, CFR, Respondent was given the following directives: (1) not to leave school without written permission from the principal; (2) when told to do something, Respondent was to do it whether or not she agreed with it. If she felt the directive violated her contract, rather than her personal beliefs, she was to file a grievance with the union; (3) comply with the requests and directions of the assistant principal, whether or not she agreed; (4) take direction from the registrar and complete the work that the registrar asked her to do; (5) use work hours for work tasks, not personal tasks; (6) not go to anyone's desk or touch or read anyone's paper without prior permission; (7) follow office procedures for telephone calls; and (8) comply with the directives given by memorandum of June 25, 1997. (Paragraph 7 above) At the July 11, 1997, CFR, Respondent was warned that if she continued to fail to follow directives and established procedures, further disciplinary action would be warranted. On May 18, 1998, Respondent, along with staff, was reminded to follow sign in/out procedures. On August 20, 1998, Respondent arrived late to work. On September 2, 1998, the meal schedule was distributed to Respondent, along with staff. On September 3, 1998, Respondent arrived late to work. On September 9, 1998, Respondent left work without authorization from the principal. Respondent failed to sign in and out. On September 14, 1998, Respondent was directed not to leave school without prior approval and to bring the original note from the doctor. On September 17, 1998, Respondent left work without permission from an administrator. On September 18, 1998, Respondent did not adhere to the school's meal schedule and failed to sign out when she departed. Respondent was directed to comply with school site schedules and procedures. On September 29 and 30, 1998, Respondent failed to sign in and out at the start and conclusion of her workday. On October 1, 1998, Respondent was tardy. She was directed to follow the previous directives as to signing in and out. On October 5 and 6, 1998, Respondent was late to work. On October 16, 1998, Respondent left work early without prior approval. On October 20, 1998, Respondent engaged in unprofessional, loud conduct and refused to sign her leave card. On October 23, 1998, Respondent was late to work. Respondent ended her workday early and engaged in a personal phone call. Respondent was directed to arrive on time, depart, and return from meals on time, and to remain on task at the worksite during her scheduled work hours. On October 30, 1998, Respondent behaved in an unprofessional manner, shouting and screaming loudly at her principal. On November 2, 1998, Respondent was late to work and failed to sign in and out. On November 19, 1998, Respondent was engaged in an off-task telephone conversation. She was not using established procedures as to maintaining attendance rosters in individual folders. Respondent was defiant in her assistant principal. Further, Respondent screamed at her principal, displaying unprofessional behavior. Respondent was warned that any similar outburst would be addressed by disciplinary action. On November 20, 1998, Respondent again engaged in a personal phone call, for approximately 20 minutes of her work time. On November 23, 1998, Respondent was not using the established procedures for attendance reports. On November 24, 1998, Respondent was late to work. On November 25, 1998, Respondent was late to work and returned late after dinner. On November 30, 1998, Respondent took vacation leave without approval. On December 1, 1998, Respondent did not follow the meal schedule. On December 3, 1998, Respondent was directed to report to a CFR on December 9, 1998. Respondent refused to attend. She was also referred to Petitioner's EAP due to excessive tardiness, prolonged lunch hours, and frequent trips to the restroom. Respondent refused to sign the referral document. She also received her evaluation which was unsatisfactory in efficiency, attendance, and punctuality, and adherence to rules and procedures. Respondent was placed on a prescription for performance improvement. On December 9, 1998, Respondent was directed to report to a CFR on December 11, 1998. Respondent refused to sign for receipt of the notice. Respondent said she could not attend at the scheduled time. On December 11, 1998, Respondent was directed to report to a rescheduled CFR on December 15, 1998. On December 15, 1998, a CFR was held with Respondent to address her unsatisfactory evaluation. The conferees discussed Respondent's deficiencies from August 1998 through December 1998. At the December 15, 1998, CFR, Respondent was given directives to: (1) be on time, be in her work area during scheduled work hours and to depart for and return from meals according to the published schedule; (2) limit conversations to business and conduct each business call within two to three minutes; (3) maintain attendance rosters in accordance with established procedures; (4) cease insubordination towards any administrator and follow all directions given by a principal or assistant principal; and (5) not to leave the worksite without written authorization from her principal or assistant principal. Further, Respondent was advised that performance and attendance are requirements of her job. At the December 15, 1998, CFR, Respondent was placed on a prescription for performance improvement. Robert Renick Education Center On January 26, 1999, Respondent transferred to the Robert Renick Education Center. On November 29, 1999, Respondent was warned in writing that her frequent tardiness was impeding the operations of her work site. She was warned that if her tardiness continued, further disciplinary action would be taken. Respondent did not show improvement after receiving the memorandum. From July 1999 through April 2000, Respondent accumulated approximately 29 days of absences. On April 25, 2000, Respondent received a directive to report to a CFR on April 28, 2000, to address her attendance, tardiness, declining work and future work status, inter alia. After Respondent was given the notice, she returned to the principal's office and exhibited erratic, impulsive behavior with minimal anger control, resulting in an altercation with her principal and assistant principal over an envelope. Respondent had reached over the principal and under her desk to grab the envelope. She was yelling, "I knew you had it. It's mine." Respondent thought the envelope contained some of her personnel records that had been expunged, but it did not. There was a tug-of-war over the envelope and Respondent held on to it, refusing to return it. The police were called and they escorted Respondent out of the building. As a result, a preliminary investigation was requested and Respondent's principal requested an alternative worksite for her. On April 26, 2000, Respondent's principal postponed the April 28th CFR pending the investigation of the incident that occurred the previous day. On April 27, 2000, Respondent was referred to Petitioner's EAP for excessive absences, excessive tardiness, prolonged lunch hours, marked changes in mood and activity level, altercations with staff, and poor judgment. Respondent did not participate. Office of Exceptional Student Education And Psychological Services (ESE Office) On April 27, 2000, Respondent was reassigned to the ESE Office as her alternative work site. Respondent was given directives concerning her hours of work, sign-in procedures, duties, and absences. She was supervised by Ms. Ball. She did not report to her work site until May 18, 2000. On August 3, 2000, Respondent was advised that her 67.5 absences from the work site, 22 of which were unauthorized leave without pay, between July 20, 1999, and July 18, 2000, were adversely impacting the work environment. Respondent was directed to: (1) be in regular attendance and on time; (2) communicate intent to be absent directly to her supervisor or designee; (3) document absences for illness with a medical note from Respondent's treating physician, presented to her supervisor or designee; (4) upon return to the work site, provide an unconditional medical release to return to full duties; and (5) if future absences are imminent, Respondent was directed to request leave and implement School Board procedures for approved leave. Respondent was warned that future absences would be reported as unauthorized leave until the required documentation was presented and that non-compliance with these directives would be considered a violation of her professional responsibilities. Nevertheless, Respondent did not improve her attendance or follow the directives. On August 29, 2000, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's attendance, performance, and future employment status. Between August 2, 1999, and August 17, 2000, Respondent had been absent 75.5 days, 27.5 of which were unauthorized leave without pay. During the August 29, 2000, CFR, Respondent was directed to: (1) be in regular attendance and on time; (2) communicate intent to be absent to her supervisor or designee; (3) document absences for illness with a medical note from Respondent's treating physician, presented to her supervisor or designee; (4) upon return to work site, provide an unconditional medical release to full duties; and (5) if future absences are imminent, Respondent was to request leave and implement School Board procedures for approved leave. Respondent was warned that future absences would be reported as unauthorized leave until the required documentation was presented and that non-compliance with these directives would be considered a violation of her professional responsibilities. Further, Respondent was reminded that unauthorized absences for three (3) consecutive workdays are evidence of abandonment of position and that unauthorized absences totaling ten (10) or more workdays during the previous twelve-month period are evidence of excessive absenteeism, which could result in future disciplinary action, including termination of employment. Nevertheless, there was no improvement after the CFR. On August 31, 2000, Respondent was again referred to Petitioner's EAP for excessive absences and tardiness, unauthorized absences, marked changes in mood, and assignment failures. Respondent refused to sign the referral document and declined to participate in the EAP. On October 24, 2000, a CFR was held with Respondent to discuss her inefficiency related to her work assignments, her attendance record and punctuality, and her future employment status. Between July 20, 1999, and October 20, 2000, Respondent had been absent from work 102 days, 82 of which were unauthorized leave without pay. Respondent's interim evaluation was unsatisfactory in the categories of efficiency and attendance/punctuality. Respondent was placed on a prescription of performance improvement. Her prescriptive activities were to be completed by November 21, 2000. On October 24, 2000, Respondent was again referred to Petitioner's EAP due to excessive absences and tardiness, absences on Mondays and/or Fridays, changes in personal appearance, marked changes in activity level, and assignment failures. Respondent refused to accept the supervisory referral to the EAP. There was no improvement after that CFR and Respondent failed to complete her prescription by November 21, 2000, as directed. On December 8, 2000, Respondent was directed to complete her prescription activities within 24 hours. She was warned that failure to do so would be considered insubordination. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On December 19, 2000, Respondent was directed to attend a CFR on January 4, 2001. On January 4, 2001, the CFR was held, as scheduled. Respondent failed to attend the CFR; however, the meeting proceeded in her absence. Since Respondent's last CFR on October 24, 2000, Respondent has been absent an additional 26.5 days out of 44 work days. The purpose of the January 4 conference was to address Respondent's inefficiency related to work assignments, her daily work performance, her difficulty with interpersonal skills with staff members, her lack of dependability in completing assignments, her judgment, her sporadic attendance and punctuality, her non-adherence to office procedures and daily schedules, her 38 personal long-distance phone calls for which she did not reimburse the school district, her failure to complete her prescription, her January 4, 2001, interim evaluation, and to explain the deficiencies resulting in her January 4, 2001, prescription plan. On January 4, 2001, Respondent's interim evaluation was unsatisfactory in the categories of efficiency, interpersonal skills, dependability and judgment, attendance and punctuality, and adherence to rules and procedures. A prescription for performance improvement was issued with a completion deadline of January 31, 2001. On January 8, 2001, a review of the summary of the CFR, Respondent's evaluation, and Respondent's prescription was scheduled but did not take place because Respondent was absent from work. On January 11, 2001, a meeting was held to review the summary of the CFR, Respondent's evaluation, and Respondent's prescription. Respondent refused to sign to acknowledge receipt of copies of the documents she was given. On January 17, 2001, Respondent was reminded that her timeline for completion of her prescriptive activities was January 31, 2001, and a meeting to review the summary of the CFR, Respondent's interim evaluation, and Respondent's prescription was re-scheduled for January 18, 2001. Respondent failed to complete her prescriptive activities by January 31, 2001, as directed. On February 2, 2001, Respondent was notified that she had failed to comply with her prescriptive activities and had failed to remediate her deficiencies. She was directed to comply with her prescriptive activities within 24 hours and was warned that failure to do so would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On February 2, 2001, Virginia Bradford, executive director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS), directed Respondent to report to a CFR on February 13, 2001. On February 8, 2001, Respondent called Ms. Bradford and threatened to kill Ms. Bradford, Ms. Ball, and Ms. Ball's supervisor, Mr. Felton. During the time that Respondent was under Ms. Ball's supervision, she was absent 123 days out of 207 workdays, 94.5 of which were unauthorized. Even when present at work, Respondent frequently did not work the full work day. On February 9, 2001, Respondent was assigned to a paid alternative placement at her residence and was advised that the CFR scheduled for February 13, 2001, would take place by mail. On February 13, 2001, a CFR was conducted by mail to address Respondent's performance assessments to date, her non- compliance with site directives regarding attendance and performance, her attendance to date, her violation of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Professional in Florida and professional responsibilities, her violation of the School Board rules concerning responsibilities and duties, a review of her record, and her future employment status. Respondent was advised that since her last CFR, on January 4, 2001, she had been absent an additional twenty-five days, twenty-four of which were unauthorized leave without pay. Further, since July 5, 1999, Respondent had been absent from work for approximately 177.5 days, 101 of which were recorded as unauthorized leave without pay. On March 14, 2001, Petitioner took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, issue a final order sustaining the suspension without pay of Patricia A. Young, and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, without back pay, for just cause, including excessive absenteeism, unauthorized absences, neglect of duty, gross insubordination, incompetency, and violation of School Board rules pertaining to employee conduct and violence in the workplace. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Superintendent of Schools' Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Dismissal from Employment. If so, whether such conduct provides the School District of Palm Beach County with "just cause" to take disciplinary action against Respondent pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. 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 School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent's Certification Respondent previously held a temporary, non-renewable teaching certificate (Certificate Number 618674) issued by the Florida Department of Education certifying that he was eligible to teach biology in grades six through twelve in the State of Florida. The certificate's "validity period" was July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1997. Respondent's Employment with the School District At all material times to the instant case, Respondent was employed by the School District as a biology teacher in the ESOL program at Atlantic Community High School. The ESOL program is designed to meet the special needs of students whose native language is not English. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a teacher employed by the School District, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the CTA (CTA Contract), effective from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1997. Article II, Section M, of the CTA Contract addresses the subject of "discipline of employees." It provide as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association [CTA], disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Association representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Association representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under any Section and his/her Association representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and his/her Association representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, 1/ progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension With Pay. A suspension with pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension with pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the Megha P. suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Agreement, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non- renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken include either a suspension or dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. Megha P. was a student at Atlantic Community High School during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years. Megha was a ninth grader during the 1995-96 school year. Respondent was Megha's biology teacher during the first semester of that school year. On the day of her final examination in Respondent's class, Megha arrived at school early, approximately three hours before the examination was scheduled to commence. Shortly after her arrival at school that day, she was approached by Respondent, who asked her to accompany him to his classroom to help him with some paperwork. Megha complied with Respondent's request. After Megha and Respondent walked into the classroom, Respondent closed the classroom door behind them and told Megha to sit on his lap. Megha refused. Respondent then forced her to sit on his lap. While Megha was on his lap, Respondent fondled her buttocks and breasts. Megha tried to stand up and walk away, but Respondent physically restrained her and she was unable to escape his grasp. As he was restraining her, Respondent demanded that Megha give him "hugs and kisses." Megha told him "no." Respondent, however, persisted. He told Megha that "all the girls" give him "hugs and kisses" and that she should do the same. Megha responded that she did not care what "all the girls" did. Despite Respondent's persistence, Megha never gave Respondent the "hugs and kisses" he had requested. Megha was involved in another incident with Respondent during the first semester of the following school year. She was not a student of Respondent's at the time. On this subsequent occasion, Megha went to Respondent's classroom to purchase a bagel. (Respondent was selling bagels at school to raise money for a class trip.) When Megha entered the classroom, Respondent commented to her that she always wore loose fitting pants without a belt. Megha replied that she did not like wearing belts. Respondent then suddenly pulled down Megha's pants. Megha quickly pulled up her pants and left the classroom. Following this incident, Respondent, on several occasions, invited Megha to his classroom, but Megha declined his invitations. Suchi H. When she was in the ninth grade at Atlantic Community High School, Suchi H. was a member of a student organization (the Asian Club) sponsored by Respondent. On a club outing to the beach, during the taking of a group photograph, Respondent, who was standing next to Suchi, put his hand on the side of her breast and kept it there. Respondent's uninvited advance made Suchi feel very uncomfortable. Lovely R. During the first semester of the 1996-97 school year, Lovely R. was a student in Respondent's class. She was in eleventh grade at the time. Lovely was once late to Respondent's class on the day of an examination and Respondent told her to come back to the classroom later in the day to take the examination. Lovely did as she was told and returned to Respondent's classroom later that day. Upon entering the classroom, she locked the door behind her pursuant to Respondent's instructions. Respondent then gave Lovely a copy of the examination, along with the answer key. When asked by Lovely why he had given her the answers to the examination, Respondent replied that he was her friend and would do anything for her. Acting without Lovely's consent, Respondent thereupon moved his hands down her body, touching her neck, shoulders, breast and buttocks. He also tried to kiss her on the face, but was unsuccessful as Lovely turned her head away from him. Not wanting to be subjected to any more of Respondent's advances, Lovely told him that she had another examination she had to take (a story she made up) and left the classroom. Before this incident, Lovely had been receiving A's for her work in Respondent's class. After the incident, she received, undeservedly, F's from Respondent. Alexis G. During the first semester of the 1996-97 school year, Alexis G. was a tenth grade student in Respondent's class. One day during the semester, Respondent asked Alexis to stay after school so that she could show him a homework assignment she had done. He told her that if she did not see him after the end of that school day, she would not receive any credit for having done the assignment. At the end of the school day, Alexis went to Respondent's classroom. After she entered the room, Respondent locked the door behind her. He then directed Alexis to a table in the back of the room and told her to lie down on it. Following Respondent's instructions, Alexis got on the table and laid down on her stomach. Respondent proceeded to caress Alexis' back, breasts and buttocks and press his body against hers. He then asked Alexis to take her clothes off. Alexis told him "no" and screamed at him to get off of her. Respondent responded by moving away from Alexis. With Respondent off of her, Alexis stood up and left the classroom. On a subsequent occasion, acting in accordance with Respondent's instructions, Alexis visited Respondent in his classroom before her sixth period class. When she arrived, Respondent was alone. Following Respondent's directives, she gave him a massage. Chrisly A. In 1996, when she was in tenth grade, Chrisly A. was a student in Respondent's class. One day in class, Respondent approached Chrisly and told her that he wanted to speak to her during sixth period that day to discuss her grades. When Chrisly expressed concerns about missing her sixth period class, Respondent gave her a pass to show to her sixth period teacher. Chrisly went to Respondent's classroom after her fifth period class that day as Respondent had asked her to. After Chrisly entered the classroom, Respondent locked the door behind her. He then began to talk with Chrisly about her grades, as he had said he would earlier that day when he had requested her to meet with him. After a short period of time, however, he abruptly changed the subject of their discussion when he told Chrisly that he liked her and that he wanted to be her boyfriend and have sex with her. In addition, he asked Chrisly when she had her menstrual period. Respondent then forced Chrisly to sit in his lap. While Chrisly was on his lap, he stroked her neck, breasts and stomach and made her kiss him. He asked Chrisly to take off the shirts she was wearing so he could see her body, but she refused. Chrisly tried to get up from Respondent's lap, but Respondent held on to her and would not let her go. Finally, after someone knocked on the classroom door, Respondent permitted Chrisly to leave. Effectiveness By engaging in the conduct described above with Megha, Suchi, Lovely, Alexis, and Chrisly, Respondent has impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system and as a member of the community. Aftermath Neither Megha, Suchi, Lovely, Alexis, nor Chrisly immediately reported Respondent to school authorities. Respondent's highly inappropriate conduct with these students, however, was ultimately brought to the authorities' attention. Following an investigation conducted by the School Board's Police Department, the School Board's Department of Employee Relations determined, based upon the findings of the investigation (which were contained in a written report prepared by the investigating officer), that a pre-disciplinary meeting should be held with Respondent. Such a pre-disciplinary meeting was held on April 7, 1997. Present at the meeting were representatives of the School District, a representative of the Palm Beach County Teachers Association, Respondent and his attorney. During the meeting, Respondent declined the opportunity to make a statement. On or about April 8, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools sent Respondent a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Dismissal from Employment, which read as follows: Based upon substantial information presented to me, I hereby inform you that I have found probable cause sufficient to warrant recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal from employment with the School District as an ESOL instructor. You are charged with committing misconduct sufficient to constitute just cause under the 1995-1997 collective bargaining agreement between The School District of Palm Beach County, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, based upon your repeated inappropriate behavior with students. Specifically, on numerous occasions you made sexual advances towards female students. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), School Board Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida, Chapter 6B- 1, Florida Administrative Code. Please be advised that I will recommend at the April 23, 1997, meeting of the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, that the School Board suspend you without pay effective April 24, 1997, and that termination of employment will become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days thereafter. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.23 and 230.33, Florida Statutes. The April 23, 1997, School Board meeting will be held in the Board Room at 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida at 5:00 p.m. You or your representative have the right to attend this meeting and present an oral statement or documentation to show why you should not be suspended without pay and/or terminated. If you intend to speak before the School Board, please immediately notify Ms. Alicia Bell, Clerk, at (407) 434- 8139, of your intention to make a presentation at that meeting. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3.27, you have the right to request a formal hearing contesting the recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal. If you desire to request a formal hearing, you must put your request in writing and submit it within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter to Cynthia S. Prettyman, General Counsel, School District of Palm Beach County, 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302, West Palm Beach Florida 33406-5813. Failure on your part to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of your right to a hearing on the matter, and all material allegations and charges made against you shall be deemed true by the School Board for purposes of entering a final order in this matter. By letter dated April 22, 1998, Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the matter. The letter from Respondent's counsel read as follows: Our office has been retained for the purpose of representing Mr. Prakash Pathmanathan before the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida with respect to the issues raised in the Superintendent's letter dated April 8, 1997, charging Mr. Pathmanathan with inappropriate behavior with students. Mr. Pathmanathan denies that there is any basis to support the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension without pay, and contests the recommendation for his dismissal. Mr. Pathmanathan requests that a hearing be conducted with respect to all issues raised by the charges described above and his defense to the charges, and requests that the hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., before an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Neither Mr. Pathmanathan, I, nor any other representative for Mr. Pathmanathan will make a presentation at the School Board meeting scheduled for April 23, 1997, when the Board will consider the propriety of the recommendation for suspension without pay, and recommend Mr. Pathmanathan's dismissal from employment. Accordingly, we request that the matter be placed on the Board's consent agenda. The matter was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the hearing Respondent had requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed misconduct in office or gross insubordination violating Miami-Dade County School Board policies or other provisions of law, and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes "just cause" for a ten-workday suspension from employment as a teacher with Miami-Dade County Public Schools ("MDCPS").
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts, Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Section E. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the duly- constituted school board with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes (2013). In accordance with chapter 120, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3213, Student Supervision and Welfare, are adopted policies of the School Board, which took effect beginning July 1, 2011. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School ("HRES"), a public school in Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between MDCPS and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. Findings of Fact Established at Hearing Respondent has been a teacher with MDCPS for approximately 32 years. During that time she has worked at nine different schools. She is presently employed at HRES and has been working there since 2012. Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach elementary school. During the 2014-2015 school year, she was teaching second-grade students at HRES. Her supervisor, Principal Julian E. Gibbs, testified that MDCPS prohibits corporal punishment and that teachers are never allowed to put their hands on students as a form of discipline. This policy was reviewed with Respondent during openings of the school, as well as faculty meetings held by Principal Gibbs. Also reviewed at these meetings was the School Board policy against sharing confidential student information with parties other than parents. Pet. Ex. 4. Principal Gibbs testified that other than incidents where he has had to discipline Respondent in the past, their relationship has been cordial. For purposes of compliance with progressive discipline and to establish the charge of gross insubordination, three reprimands and an Administrative Review Site Disposition/Conference were included in the Notice of Specific Charges. The record reveals that the first reprimand was issued to Respondent on December 18, 2012, by Principal Gibbs. The reprimand directed Respondent to "refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students" and to adhere to School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. The directives necessary to correct her conduct were explained to her by Principal Gibbs. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 13, p. 114.2/ On March 14, 2013, a Conference for the Record ("CFR") was held with Respondent relating to another incident. It also included her union representatives and Principal Gibbs. At this conference, Respondent was directed to "Immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students," adhere to School Board policies, particularly 3210 and 3210.01, and also to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS." Respondent acknowledged receipt of this CFR summary and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 12, p. 107. On May 12, 2014, Respondent received another reprimand regarding her personal cell phone ringing during testing procedures.3/ Moreover, Respondent also received a directive to adhere to School Board policies and to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS." Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 11, p. 97. On February 2, 2015, Respondent received yet another reprimand pertaining to her inappropriate physical treatment of students. Specifically, she was given directives and warnings including, but not limited to, "Refrain from using physical means as a form of disciplining and redirecting students," to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS," and, again, to adhere to School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 82. To summarize, prior to the incidents underlying the present case, Respondent was given clear and unmistakable disciplinary directives to refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students on at least three occasions. She had also been repeatedly warned and directed to adhere to School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Allegations of Misconduct on March 3, 2015 On March 3, 2015, a second-grade student, D.L., was running to the bathroom and clapped her hands in the face of another student as she ran past. D.L. admitted that she was misbehaving. Respondent thought that D.L. had hit or tried to hit another student. D.L. testified that Respondent "snatched" her and "slammed" her in the classroom closet where she loudly reprimanded her with the door open. According to D.L., Respondent was "rough" with her, used a "big grip" and a "strong force" that left a mark on her arm. D.L. stated that her being grabbed by the wrist did not hurt her. Also, while being taken into the closet, D.L. was "100% sure" that she hit her head on something in the closet. The incident was observed and corroborated by the testimony of Makiba Burkes. Burkes was an adult co-teacher who was teaching in the classroom with Respondent at the time. Burkes had sent D.L. to use the restroom, because she said she was not feeling well. Along the way, she saw Respondent grab her by the upper arm and take her into the closet. When D.L. came out, she was "crying profusely." Burkes testified that the closet that D.L. was forcefully "pulled" into was a walk-in closet and was full of "stuff," including teacher supplies, desks, a refrigerator, and a microwave cart. She did not see D.L. hit her head on anything. Furthermore, she heard no yelling, but saw Respondent speaking close up to D.L. She witnessed no inappropriate physical contact inside the closet between Respondent and D.L. In Burkes' opinion, the way Respondent grabbed the student's upper arm and pulled D.L. into the closet was not appropriate or necessary, because teachers are not supposed to touch students in that manner. Burkes admits that her professional relationship with Respondent was not the best and that the two did not get along.4/ Respondent came into the class after Burkes had already spent time with many of the students. Respondent wanted to do things her way, and that was not working because the students had already become accustomed to Burkes' style. As a result, the professional relationship became a "pull and tug situation." After a while, the students were not listening to Respondent, and Burkes would have to jump in to "demand control of the whole classroom." According to Burkes, she felt Respondent became frustrated with D.L., and she had seen her become frustrated with other students on other occasions. However, she felt that the frustration she witnessed did not justify putting hands on D.L. Shortly after this incident, Respondent attempted to call D.L.'s father to report her misbehavior to him. Respondent dialed a telephone number using a number contained in the grade book system. However, without first confirming the identity of the person on the other line, Respondent began to discuss D.L.'s misbehavior in detail with the other party. According to Respondent, without asking the name of the person on the other line, she stated, "Mr. L., I'm calling concerning your daughter. And I need you to speak with her." To which the person on the line replied only "Okay." Respondent then went on to explain in detail D.L.'s disruptive conduct that had just occurred. She then gave the phone to D.L. without further conversation. When D.L. got off the phone, she advised Respondent, "That wasn't my dad." The person was actually "Jose," D.L.'s father's boss.5/ D.L.'s father testified at the hearing. He offered hearsay statements from his boss, Jose, pertaining to what he was told on the phone by Respondent.6/ Jose was apparently never asked his name by Respondent and was told the "whole situation" about D.L. that day. D.L.'s father was upset and outraged when he learned of this phone call to his boss. He stated that he was "hurt" and that everyone at his job has learned what happened with D.L. D.L.'s father was so upset by the incident that on March 10, 2015, he sent a letter to the school explaining the situation and his feelings on the matter. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 38. Respondent claimed that the incident with the telephone call was some type of "set up" or conspiracy against her. Yet, she offered no names or other factual details to support her conclusory allegation. Allegations of Misconduct on March 11, 2015 On March 11, 2015, Student A.W. was misbehaving. She was standing up out of her seat and throwing paper. In response, Respondent grabbed her by the shirt collar and pushed her to the wall. A.W. testified that it hurt and that the incident made her mad and sad. D.L. also testified that she saw Respondent "snatch" A.W.'s shirt and "like she just dragged her to the wall" and started talking to her. Student J.F. also saw Respondent grab A.W.'s shirt collar and put her against the wall, when she was misbehaving. According to J.F., you could "hear it" when A.W. was "put up against the wall hard" by Respondent. Burkes was also a witness to this incident. She saw Respondent grab A.W. by the front of her shirt and give her a "moderate" push into the wall. Because she considered this to be inappropriate, she reported what she saw to Principal Gibbs. Respondent testified as to both incidents. Regarding the incident on March 3, 2015, involving D.L., Respondent testified that she was running, passed the classroom table, and she "like hit at a student." She acknowledged that D.L. had likely asked her co-teacher, Burkes, to go to the restroom. Respondent claimed that she "gently" led D.L. into the closet to reprimand her because she did not want her to be embarrassed in front of the other students. Regarding the incident on March 11, 2015, with A.W., Respondent testified that she was standing up out of her desk and throwing paper across the room. She spoke to her and turned back to start working with her group again. She told A.W. to stand by the wall until she was finished because she had been interrupting. She denied grabbing her by the shirt or collar and pushing her into the wall. According to Respondent, she only uses gentle touches with children. Respondent claims that she has received so many reprimands from Principal Gibbs that she cannot remember how many. She also claims that she has been under attack by Principal Gibbs since she has been at the school. Aside from claiming that she has been reprimanded on many occasions by Principal Gibbs, she provided no other facts or details as to how, why, when, or where she has been "under attack" by the principal. She called no witnesses to offer any details or corroboration. Respondent testified that there are unnamed employees trying to "set her up." However, she offered no substantive facts to support this conclusory allegation, and the undersigned finds it unpersuasive.7/ Respondent testified and acknowledged that it would not be appropriate to grab a student by their collar and pull them towards a wall. According to Respondent, she only touches children gently to direct them where she wants them to go and sit. The facts underlying the charge of misconduct and gross insubordination occurring on March 3 and 11, 2015, were testified to by three students. Their testimony regarding these incidents was corroborated by an adult co-worker, Burkes, who was in the room and observed the incidents. She also prepared a written statement. Pet. Ex. 4, p. 44. Having assessed the credibility, demeanor, and interests of the witnesses, as well as the weight of the evidence, the undersigned credits and finds more persuasive the version of the facts testified to by the three female students and Burkes concerning how these incidents occurred, over Respondent's testimony to the contrary. The undersigned finds that Respondent's conduct violated several rules and policies that establish standards of conduct for teachers, namely, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, and 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and several School Board policies. As such, Petitioner has proven that Respondent committed gross insubordination and misconduct in office and violated School Board Policies 3210, 3210.01, and 3213. Despite fair and proper warning, Respondent defied several clear and simple directives that had been issued to her by Principal Gibbs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board discipline Respondent with a ten-day unpaid suspension as previously proposed by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a bus driver and was assigned to Central East Regional Transportation Center (Central East), which is within the school district of Miami-Dade County. The Respondent is a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) bargaining unit. At all times material, Randy Mazie (Mazie) was the Director of Central East. Juan Perez was the Coordinator of Central East (reporting to Mazie), and Frank Hernandez and Florence Birch were Administrative Assistants (reporting to Perez and Mazie). When a bus driver is absent without advance notice, it often has a substantial impact on the work site. Absenteeism of bus drivers causes delays on that particular route and typically puts stress on both students and school site employees. On a number of occasions, Mazie personally had conversations with the Respondent about her poor attendance record and the consequences of her absenteeism. In addition, employees, including the Respondent, received training about attendance policies and procedures. In March 2000, the Respondent was referred to the Employee Assistance Program. On April 28, 2000, the Petitioner received notification that the Respondent declined to participate in the Employee Assistance Program. The Petitioner accommodated the Respondent by approving leaves of absence for the Respondent during the following time- frames: January 21, 1998, through April 1, 1998; April 2, 1998, through April 1, 1999; November 29, 1999, through January 2, 2000; January 3, 2000, through January 31, 2000; and February 25, 2000, through March 3, 2000. On November 19, 1999, School Board administrators held a conference with the Respondent to address the Respondent’s excessive absenteeism. At the conference the Respondent was advised that she had been absent a total of 52.5 days since April 1999, including 18 days of unauthorized absences. In addition, the Respondent was advised that continued absenteeism would result in a second conference. At the conference, the Respondent was asked if there were any mitigating circumstances for her absences. The Respondent did not provide any explanation for her unauthorized absences. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent received a written summary of the conference. On March 2, 2000, School Board administrators held a second conference with the Respondent to address the Respondent’s continued excessive absenteeism. At the conference, the Respondent was advised that she had been absent without authorization for 6.5 days since the first conference. In addition, the Respondent was advised that she had been absent a total of 74 days during the past 12-month period, including 24.5 days of unauthorized absences. The Respondent was instructed that continued absenteeism would result in a third and final conference, which could result in termination of her employment. At the second conference, the Respondent was asked if there were any mitigating circumstances for her absences. The Respondent did not provide any explanation for her unauthorized absences. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent received a written summary of the second conference. On May 31, 2000, School Board administrators sent a memorandum to the Respondent regarding the Respondent’s continued absenteeism. In the memorandum, the Respondent was directed to report to duty daily, as all of her leave time had been exhausted. The Respondent refused to sign a copy of the memorandum. Notwithstanding the above directive, the Respondent’s excessive absenteeism continued. From November 30, 2000, to December 19, 2000, the Respondent was absent from work. On January 4, 2001, the Respondent presented the School Board Administrators with a medical document signed by the Respondent’s physician purporting to excuse the Respondent from work from November 27, 2000, through January 3, 2001. On January 6, 2001, the School Board Administrators discovered that the Respondent’s physician did not excuse the Respondent from work from November 27, 2000, through January 3, 2001, and that the medical document provided by the Respondent had been falsified. On January 22, 2001, School Board administrators held a third conference with the Respondent to address the Respondent’s continued excessive absenteeism and submission of fraudulent medical documentation. At the conference, the administrators advised the Respondent that she had been absent a total of 38 days during the past 12-month period. The Respondent was also informed that, since March 2000, she had been absent without authorization for 18 days. At the conference, the Respondent was afforded an opportunity to refute the charges that she had submitted fraudulent medical documentation. Despite this opportunity, the Respondent did not refute the charges or provide an explanation. Thereafter, the Respondent received a written summary of the conference; however, the Respondent refused to sign the summary. On February 22, 2001, the Office of Professional Standards held a conference with the Respondent to address the Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and submission of fraudulent medical documentation. At the conference, the Respondent was afforded an opportunity to refute the charges that she had submitted fraudulent medical documentation. Despite this opportunity, the Respondent did not refute the charges or provide an explanation. The Respondent received a written summary of the conference. During the hearing, the Respondent testified that she went to the emergency room (but was not admitted to the hospital) during the time-frame from November 30, 2000, through December 19, 2000. The emergency room personnel told her to follow up with her physician. Notwithstanding these directions, the Respondent admitted that she failed to follow up with her physician. During the time-frame from November 30, 2000, through December 19, 2000, School Board administrators directed the Respondent to submit documents indicating that she was under medical care. Thereafter, the Respondent falsified the medical note. The Respondent also generally testified during the hearing that she was undergoing counseling by a social worker for stress related to her personal life. However, the Respondent never offered as evidence any records from the social worker, and Mazie testified that she never had a conversation with him about meeting with a social worker. Moreover, the Respondent admitted that the School Board Administrators authorized absences related to her daughter’s pregnancy/illness, as well as housing problems she encountered during a storm. In addition, the Respondent conceded that the School Board never denied the Respondent a requested leave of absence. Between April 1, 1999, and November 19, 1999, the Respondent was absent without authorization for 20.5 days. During that same time-frame, the Respondent was absent with authorization (and without pay) for 20 days. Between November 19, 1999, and March 2, 2000, the Respondent was absent without authorization for 8.5 days. Between March 3, 1999, and March 2, 2000, the Respondent was absent without authorization for 28.5 days. During that same time-frame, the Respondent was absent with authorization (and without pay) for 51 days. Between January 23, 2000, and January 22, 2001, the Respondent was absent without authorization for 22 days. During that same time-frame, the Respondent was absent with authorization (and without pay) for 12 days. Between March 3, 2000, and March 3, 2001, the Respondent was absent without authorization for 21 days. During that same time-frame, the Respondent was absent with authorization (and without pay) for 8 days. Between November 30, 2000, and December 19, 2000, the Respondent was absent without authorization for 14 consecutive days. Based on the Respondent’s leave history records, she was absent without authorization, between March 3, 2000, and March 3, 2001, as follows: March 10, 2000 (½ day); April 10, 2000 (½ day); April 13, 2000 (½ day); May 30, 2000 (½ day); May 31, 2000 (½ day); June 2, 2000 (½ day); July 18, 2000 (½ day); July 21, 2000 (½ day); November 30, 2000 (1 day); December 1, 2000 (1 day); December 4, 2000 (1 day); December 5, 2000 (1 day); December 6, 2000 (1 day); December 7, 2000 (1 day); December 8, 2000 (1 day); December 11, 2000 (1 day); December 12, 2000 (1 day); December 13, 2000 (1 day); December 14, 2000 (1 day); December 15, 2000 (1 day); December 18, 2000 (1 day); December 19, 2000 (1 day); January 10, 2001 (½ day); January 11, 2001 (½ day); February 15, 2001 (1 day); February 22, 2001 (½ day); and February 27, 2001 (½ day). As a result of the Respondent's conduct, School Board administrators recommended dismissal of the Respondent. Thereafter, the Petitioner suspended the Respondent without pay and initiated these dismissal proceedings.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating the Respondent's employment and denying all other relief sought by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2002.
