Findings Of Fact The Petition herein was filed by Petitioner with PERC on December 30, 1974. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this cause was scheduled by notice dated April 18, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibits 2, 3). 3, The Suwannee County School Board is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation TR 4). The United Teachers of Suwannee is an organization which is seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer concerning working conditions, including wages, hours, and terms of employment. The United Teachers of Suwannee was formed through a merger of two organizations, one of which had previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Public Employer prior to the adoption of the Public Employees Relations Act. There is no contractual bar to the holding of an election in this case. (Stipulation TR 7, 8). There is no bargaining history under the Public Employees Relations Act which affects this matter. (Stipulation TR 8). Requests for recognition as the exclusive representative of persons in the unit described in the Petition, and the Public Employer's response to the requests are set out in correspondence which has been received in evidence as Joint Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4. Petitioner clearly requested recognition. The Public Employer did not comply with requests for meetings as promptly as requested by Petitioner; however, the request for recognition was not explicitly denied. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5). The Public Employer contends that Petitioner is not duly registered. The PERC registration file, PERC No. 8H-OR-744-1034, was received in evidence. The Public Employer sought to present the testimony of certain PERC officials with respect to its contention; however, Petitions to Enforce Subpoenas of these individuals were denied. 9, PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite Showing of Interest with it's Petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). The Public Employer sought to offer evidence that the requisite Showing of Interest had not been presented to PERC; however, no direct evidence in support of the Public Employer's position was presented. The parties agreed that the unit designation set forth in the Petition is appropriate, except that the Public Employer would exclude guidance counselors, occupational specialists, and the school psychologist from the unit. Petitioner would include these persons within the unit. The Public Employer employs five guidance counselors. One guidance counselor is employed at Branford High School, one at the Vocational/Technical School, one at the Suwannee Middle School, and two at Suwannee High School. Guidance counselors are charged generally with responsibility for counseling students and assisting them in understanding the school and it's environment, in understanding themselves in relation to others, in understanding their progress in relation to their abilities and limitations, and in understanding themselves in relation to education and vocational goals. Guidance counselors assemble and interpret information about students, encourage and participate in case conferences with parents and/or teachers, participate in school standardized testing programs, and distribute occupational and vocational material to pupils. In addition to these functions, which are generally associated with the position of guidance counselor, guidance counselors employed by the Public Employer perform additional functions which are probably unique to Suwannee County. Indeed, the functions performed by guidance counselors within Suwannee County vary from school to school and from counselor to counselor. The broad range of duties performed by a guidance counselor in Suwannee County will depend to a great extent upon the personality of the individual counselor and his or her relationship with the school principal. All guidance counselors within the Suwannee County School system have Masters Degrees. It is necessary for a guidance counselor to have a casters Degree in order to be certified as a guidance counselor. Although a good number of teachers within the school system have Masters Degrees, this is not a requirement. Guidance counselors are certified in a different category than are teachers. Guidance counselors have the same base pay as teachers. A beginning guidance counselor would receive the same pay as a beginning teacher with a Masters Degree. Guidance counselors have the same contract as instructional personnel. No guidance counselors employed by the Public Employer perform instructional duties. Guidance counselors receive mail at the schools in the same manner as instructional personnel, share the teachers' lounge, and eat lunch in the school cafeteria with instructional personnel. All guidance counselors have offices. Many teachers also have offices, but all teachers do not have offices. Teachers are scheduled for five instructional work periods per day and one planning period. Guidance counselors work six periods per day without any planning period. Teachers are generally hired on a ten-month contract basis, while guidance counselors are hired on a twelve-month basis. Students frequently relate complaints with respect to their teachers to guidance counselors. The guidance counselors who testified at the hearing each handled these complaints in a different manner. Among the actions that a guidance counselor might take upon hearing a number of complaints about a teacher are to counsel with the teacher, or to inform the principal. Guidance counselors are responsible for assigning new students to classes. In making these assignments guidance counselors will consider class sizes and the personality of the teacher and the student. Guidance counselors can make an assignment despite objections of a teacher. Guidance counselors periodically meet as a group without any teachers present. These meetings might be called guidance counselor meetings, communications meetings, or policy meetings. Guidance counselors occasionally attend meetings with the superintendent and his staff and principals. Policy matters which affect the entire school system are discussed at these meetings, and decisions are made based upon these discussions. A new diploma policy was recently adopted within the school system as a result of such meetings. Guidance counselors do not have the power to hire, fire, suspend or discipline teachers or other instructional personnel. Henry Clay Hooter is the guidance counselor at the Vocational/Technical School. In addition to the duties discussed above, Mr. Hooter serves as the school's Assistant Principal. He has served as Acting Principal on several occasions. On one occasion while serving as Assistant Principal, Mr. Hooter was placed in the position of preparing the Principal's School Budget. In the absence of the principal Mr. Hooter has been called upon to sign leaves of absence for teachers. In the absence of the Principal Mr. Hooter is generally responsible for maintaining order at his school. Because he serves as Assistant Principal, Mr. Hooter has more contact with the Principal than teachers have. Lonnie Bob Hurst is one of the guidance counselors at Suwannee High School. In addition to the general duties and responsibilities set outs above, Ms. Hurst participates in preparing the master school schedule. A teacher's entire workday is set out in the master school schedule. Decisions made in preparing this schedule will determine whether a teacher will have advanced, medium, or slow courses, when the courses will be taught, when the teacher will have a free period, and when the teacher will take lunch. The master school schedule is ultimately adopted by the Principal. Both the Principal and the Assistant Principal work on the schedule along with Ms. Hurst. Ms. Hurst makes recommendations respecting courses that should be offered at Suwannee High School. Her recommendations are generally followed. The Principal at Suwannee High School frequently meets with the school's two guidance counselors and the Assistant Principal to discuss scheduling, and other policy matters. Guidance counselors at Suwannee High School play an active role in determining which courses will be offered, and which teachers will teach the courses. Oscar Munch is the guidance counselor at Branford High School. Mr. Munch acts as Assistant Principal in the absence of the Assistant Principal. Mr. Munch was previously charged with the responsibility for drafting the master schedule, but the Assistant Principal now performs this function. Ms. Virginia Alford is the guidance counselor at Suwannee Middle School. The Principal at Suwannee Middle School, Mr. John Cade, relies upon Ms. Alford to perform numerous functions beyond those generally associated with the position of guidance counselor, and the duties and responsibilities discussed generally above. Mr. Cade has delegated the responsibility for developing the master school schedule to Ms. Alford. Mr. Cade has ultimate responsibility for approving the schedule, but he generally follows the recommendations of Ms. Alford. The guidance counselor at Suwannee Middle School is responsible for assigning students to teachers. In making these assignments the guidance counselor is expected to evaluate the student and the teacher. Mr. Cade relies upon Ms. Alford in preparing his evaluations of teachers. Ms. Alford does not fill out any formal evaluation form; however, Ms. Alford's observations respecting student complaints and the teacher's utilization of student files are solicited by Mr. Cade, and are used by him in rendering evaluations of teachers. Teachers make suggestions to Mr. Cade respecting the budget. Ms. Alford actually assists Mr. Cade in preparing the budget. She attends budget meetings with him, and is expected to give advice to Mr. Cade respecting overall school needs. Mr. Cade meets very frequently, approximately two times per week with his Assistant Principal and his guidance counselor. The guidance counselor's name is on the school stationery. Mr. Cade frequently takes his guidance counselor to meetings with the Superintendent and the Superintendent's staff. Limited negotiations were conducted between the Public Employer and a labor organization which ultimately merged with the Petitioner in this case. Guidance counselors, occupational specialists, and school psychologists did not participate in these negotiations on behalf of the school board. It is now the apparent intent of the Public Employer to place such staff members as guidance counselors, occupational specialists and school psychologists on the collective bargaining negotiating team on a rotating basis. The purpose this placement would be to have the persons who will ultimately have responsibility for administering an agreement participate in the negotiations. There are two occupational specialists employed by the Public Employer. The occupational specialists are not assigned to a particular school. Occupational specialists are charged generally with placing students who are leaving the school system in positions in business and industry. The occupational specialists follow up on students after graduation. The occupational specialists answer directly to the Director of Vocational Education. They prepare their own plan of operation and have a separate budget. Occupational specialists made specific recommendations to the Superintendent regarding items in their budgets. Occupational specialists perform no instructional duties. There is no requirement that an occupational specialist have a college degree. The school psychologist is a member of the Superintendent's staff. The school psychologist answers directly to the Superintendent. He has primary responsibility for the testing and placement of students within the school district. The school psychologist plays a major role in placement of students within the school system. He has a separate office and his own secretary. The school psychologist holds a "specialist degree", which is a level above a Masters Degree. The school psychologist plays a role in formulating school policy respecting special education programs. The school psychologist has virtually total discretion in administering budgetary funds which are allocated to him. ENTERED this 25 day of November, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact By operation of the Constitution of the State of Florida, Article IX, Section 4(b), the Board is charged with the operation, control and supervision of all schools within Volusia County, Florida. By state law, Section 230.01, Florida Statutes (1991), the State of Florida has delegated to the Board the responsibility for the actual operation and administration of all schools within Volusia County. Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that the Board will exercise, inter alia, the following general powers: (5) PERSONNEL - Designate positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees as follows, subject to the requirements of Chapter 231: (a) Positions, qualifications and appointments. - Act upon written recommendations submitted by the Superintendent for positions to be filled . . . Section 230.33(7)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the Superintendent of Schools to make written nominations of persons to fill positions established by the School Board. With respect to classroom teachers employed by the Board, such employees may be granted tenure, that is the right to continuing employment subject to removal upon certain conditions. The tenure rights of classroom teachers employed by the Board are provided by the Volusia County Teachers' Tenure Law, Chapter 18964, Laws of Florida (1937), as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Volusia County Tenure Law" or "the tenure law.") The procedure used by the Board in determining which teachers are to be granted tenure begins with a recommendation made by the principal who is supervising the teacher in question. The recommendation is made to the Board's personnel office which then passes it on to the Superintendent, who either supports the recommendation by making it to the School Board or not. Only the Board may reelect a teacher for employment, and such reelection is an essential precondition to the obtainment of status as a tenured teacher. The Volusia County Tenure Law provides for a probationary period of three years following which, if the teacher is reelected to employment for a fourth consecutive year and fills other requirements set forth in the tenure law, he or she will obtain tenure. In the case of the three individual Petitioners who are parties to this action, each was denied tenure following her third year of employment, but did obtain employment in the status of a fourth year probationary employee. The alternative to this fourth year of probation was described by the Board's representative as a "failure to enter into a contract for an additional year and termination." The Union introduced a list of three teachers besides the individual Petitioners in this action as Petitioners' Exhibit 7. Of the three persons listed in that exhibit, one, Hall, was granted tenure after her fourth year of probation. Another, Maynar, was granted tenure after his fifth year of probation. The third, Powers, was granted tenure after seven years of probationary status. The fact that two of those teachers served probationary periods in excess of four years was described to be as the result of "oversight" on the part of the Board. Petitioners' Exhibit 1 sets forth tenure treatment of classroom teachers employed by the Board from and including the 1988-89 school year to and including the 1991-92 school year. In the 1988-89 school year, 123 teachers received tenure after a third year of probation, 12 teachers were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 115 teachers were non-renewed (terminated) after their third year, and 23 accepted a fourth year of probation. In the 1989-90 school year, 110 teachers received tenure after their third year, 22 were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 25 were non-renewed, and 25 accepted a fourth year of probation. In the 1990-91 school year, 155 teachers received tenure after their third year, 25 were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 28 were not renewed after their third year, and 41 accepted a fourth year of probation. In the 1991-92 school year, the last year for which records were available at the time of the hearing, 198 teachers received tenure following a third year of probation, 46 were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 33 were not renewed after their third year of probation, and 9 accepted a fourth year of probation. On March 30, 1993, Dr. Willie D. Brennon, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel for the Board, issued an interoffice memorandum to all principals and department heads which informed those principals and department heads that contract "Status 5," that is the granting of a fifth probationary year, was no longer an option open to principals and department heads dealing with classroom teachers. The Board's Division for Personnel Services has also issued a document entitled "Procedure for Giving Notice of Non forms for the employment and treatment of teachers. The Board has not promulgated any set of standards to be used by a principal in deciding whether he or she will recommend a classroom teacher for tenure. On April 19, 1991, Pearl Coleman was employed by the Board as a classroom teacher. On that same day, Ms. Coleman's principal, Rowena Reddix, completed a form entitled "Instructional Personnel Reappointment 1991 School Year." In that form, Ms. Reddix requested that Ms. Coleman be recommended for reappointment for the 1991 On May 10, 1991, Ms. Reddix recommended that Ms. Coleman be granted tenure by completing a form entitled "Recommendation for Tenure 1991-92 School Year." However, Ms. Reddix later rescinded her recommendation that tenure be granted to Ms. Coleman. After the recision, on June 13, 1991, Ms. Reddix recommended that Ms. Coleman be appointed as a probationary (non employee for the 1991 document, Ms. Coleman accepted employment as a probationary employee by executing a sworn statement that read as follows: This is to inform you that I voluntarily accept classification as a probationary employee for the 1991-92 school year. When Ms. Coleman signed that statement and accepted employment as a probationary employee, she understood that, but for her acceptance of this status, she would not be employed by the Board. Furthermore, although Ms. Coleman believed she would receive tenure after her fourth year of probation, she understood that she did not have tenure in that fourth year. On May 15, 1992, Mr. Gerald L. Gill, who succeeded Ms. Reddix as Ms. Coleman's principal, signed a letter, which informed Ms. Coleman that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1992-93 school year and that the Board would not enter into a contract of employment with her for any period subsequent to the 1991-92 school year. Linda L. Williams was employed by the Board as a classroom teacher for the 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92 school years. In her third year of employment, Ms. Williams was employed as a classroom teacher at Woodward Avenue School and served under principal Jo Anne Rodkey. In the same year, Ms. Rodkey informed Ms. Williams that she would not be recommended for reemployment because the school was losing a unit and therefore there was no position for her at the school. On May 12, 1992, Ms. Rodkey delivered to Ms. Williams a letter informing Ms. Williams that Ms. Rodkey would not be recommending her for tenure. Subsequently, Ms. Williams applied for a position as a sixth grade teacher at Holly Hill Middle School. Ms. Williams previously had been informed by Ms. Rodkey that any further employment by the Board would be as a probationary employee. Ms. Williams specifically understood that the only way she would be hired at Holly Hill was on a probationary basis and further understood that if she had not agreed to probationary status she would not have been employed at Holly Hill Middle School. Ms. Williams accepted employment at Holly Hill under these conditions. On June 12, 1991, Petitioner Lynne Demarest was employed as a classroom teacher at South Daytona Elementary School. On that same date, Ms. Demarest executed a notarized statement which stated: This is to inform you that I voluntarily accept classification as a probationary employee for the 1991 Subsequently, on June 14, 1991, Mr. David C. Butler, who was the principal at South Daytona Elementary School, recommended the reappointment of Ms. Demarest as a probationary employee for the 1991 time that Ms. Demarest accepted employment on probationary status, she understood that this was the only condition upon which she would be employed by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-1862 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Florida Education Association et al. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-11 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Volusia County 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-17(1-17). COPIES FURNISHED: Lorene C. Powell Chief Trial Counsel, FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Thomas M. Gonzalez Attorney at Law 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Carroll Webb Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Pinellas County School Board, should suspend the Respondent, Dawn McIntyre, from her employment as a teacher for three days without pay on charges contained in the July 11,1990, letter from the School Superintendent, Scott N. Rose. 1/ The letter charges: (1) that, on one occasion during the 1987-88 school year, the Respondent pushed a teacher aide; (2) that on May 9, 1990, the Respondent struck another teacher aide with a lamp; and (3) that the Respondent also handled two students in a rough, punitive manner during May and June, 1990. The charging letter asserts that the Respondent's alleged conduct constitutes misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dawn McIntyre, has been a teacher at Safety Harbor Elementary School since the 1984-85 school year. Until this year, she taught pre-kindergarten emotionally handicapped children. For the 1990-91 school year, she accepted a smaller class of children with varying exceptionalities. She has an annual professional service contract, not a continuing contract. She is certified to teach early childhood, mental retardation and special learning disabilies. During the 1987-88 school year, the Respondent became involved in a confrontation with an aide at school. The seeds of this confrontation were sown when the aide and the teacher with whom she worked presented flowers to the school principal in appreciation for the efforts of the principal in saving the aide's job, which was in jeopardy of being eliminated for budgetary reasons. Shortly afterwards, in conversation in the teacher's lounge, the Respondent labeled the aide as a "[expletive deleted] brown-nose." This comment was reported to the aide by a participant in the conversation, and the aide was upset by it. She decided to confront the Respondent and explain the circumstances to demonstrate that the label was unfair. When she confronted the Respondent, the Respondent did not give her an opportunity to explain but rather pushed the aide on the shoulder with the palm of her hand and rudely insisted that the label fit. In January, 1990, the Respondent began working with a new aide. Although the new aide was unfamiliar with the work and needed some on-the-job training, the Respondent worked reasonably well with the aide until, in late April or early May, the aide volunteered to help another teacher who did not have an aide and needed assistance. The Respondent objected, taking the position that the Respondent needed all of the aide's available time to help in the Respondent's class. The Respondent told the aide that the aide's volunteering for another teacher would have to be put on her evaluation as an adverse comment. From that point forward, the Respondent began to treat the aide more and more poorly, and the Respondent's working relationship with the aide quickly deteriorated to the point that the aide felt compelled to seek the advice of her union representative on how to handle the situation. While the aide's handling of the situation may have contributed marginally to the deterioration of the working relationship between the two, the breakdown would not have happened without the Respondent's inappropriate behavior. On or about May 9, 1990, the Respondent instructed the aide to take only half of the children's hour rest period for lunch and use the rest to do paperwork in the classroom. After her lunch, the aide began to arrange a place to do the paperwork. The Respondent objected to the way the aide set a desk lamp on the table the aide was going to work at, thinking it threw too much light on where some of the children were sleeping, and she told the aide to move the lamp. When the aide did not move fast enough for the Respondent's liking, the Respondent rushed over to the table in disgust and snatched the lamp off the table before the aide could move it. In the process, she shouldered and elbowed the aide out of the way, knocking her temporarily off balance and accidentally grazing the aide's elbow with the lamp. Greatly upset by the way in which the Respondent handled the situation, together with the cumulative effect of the Respondent's prior inappropriate behavior, the aide immediately left the classroom without saying anything to the Respondent and reported the incident to the administration, in accordance with the advice of her union representative. The aide refused to continue to work with the Respondent and was reassigned. Two of the three other available aides also refused to work with the Respondent. One was the aide whom the Respondent had pushed and called a "[expletive deleted] brown-nose," and she refused to work with the Respondent partly because of the pushing incident. The other had not been involved personally in any unpleasant confrontations with the Respondent but was uncomfortable working with the Respondent in light of the incidents involving others that had been related to her. The third aide was only part-time and was too new to be thrust into the gap, in the opinion of the school principal. The principal had to go to the aides' union to force one of the other aides to work with the Respondent for the rest of the school year. As it turned out, the aide forced to work with the Respondent used sick leave so as to work with the Respondent as little as possible, and aides had to be put in the classroom on a rotating basis. On or about May 10, 1990, while in the process of escorting her class from the lunchroom back to the classroom, the Respondent walked up to one of her more difficult pupils, who had just spent most of the lunch period in "time- out," grasped him around the chin, with her thumb on one cheek and her fingers on the other cheek, applying more pressure than necessary to merely get his attention, and spoke to him sternly. This was done in the presence of the other children in the class and within sight of other children and adults in the lunchroom. On or about June 5, 1990, while again in the lunchroom, the Respondent walked up to another pupil from her class, who was sitting at the "time-out table," and reprimanded him sternly for untruthfully having told her that he had eaten his lunch. As she reprimanded the pupil, she squeezed his ear between her fingers and twisted it as part of the discipline. This, too, was done within sight of the children and adults in the lunchroom. Although perhaps technically corporal punishment in violation of School Board policy, the facts described in Findings 6 and 7, above, can be described as minor, or even marginal, violations. Neither child was injured, and neither complained to any adult that the Respondent had hurt them. (The child involved in the June 5th incident said that his ear hurt a little, but that was only when directly asked by one of the adults who witnessed the incident.) The "punishment" was so minor as to leave question whether it was punishment or just a case of overdoing an effort to get and keep the children's attention. By the time of the final hearing, all of the adult witnesses to these incidents were feuding with the Respondent in some form or fashion, and their testimony describing the incidents could have been slanted by the animosity between them and the Respondent. The Respondent has been and continues to be an effective teacher of pre-kindergarten children with learning disabilities. However, as reflected in the preceding Findings, she unfortunately has been susceptible to improper and unprofessional behavior which has hampered her working relationships with a significant number of her teaching colleagues and has created difficulties for the administration of the school. This has reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. The parties stipulated on the record of the final hearing that, if the charges are proven, a three-day suspension would be the appropriate discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and suspending her for three days without pay. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on grounds alleged in the Civil Service Notice of Disciplinary Action of May 10, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent in Petitioner's maintenance department as a Carpenter I. Respondent was a non-probationary educational support employee as defined in Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2003), which is substantially similar to Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes (2001), and its predecessors. In October 1995, Respondent's fishing boat collided with a commercial barge. As a result of the accident, Respondent's father and uncle were killed and Respondent's son suffered serious bodily injury. Respondent had a history of poor attendance at work. Sometime prior to October 1998, Respondent's supervisor counseled him and recommended discipline due to unexcused and excessive absences from work. Respondent was arrested in October 1998 as the result of the boating accident. Respondent initially was charged with one count each of vessel homicide, culpable negligence, and boating under the influence (BUI) severe bodily injury, and two counts of manslaughter. On April 28, 2000, a jury found Respondent guilty as charged. It is undisputed that Respondent was absent from work without authorization or approved leave from April 17, 2000 through May 17, 2000. Petitioner terminated his employment effective May 17, 2000. Respondent was sentenced on August 22, 2000, for the following offenses: causing serious bodily injury to another, culpable negligence in the death of another, vessel homicide, and two counts of BUI manslaughter. On appeal, some of Respondent's felony convictions were discharged. However, the Court affirmed Respondent's BUI manslaughter convictions. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The court in Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), certified a question of great public importance involving a jury instruction to the Florida Supreme Court. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, Case No. SC02-1264, Rev.gr. 832 So. 2d 103 (Table) (Fla. November 19, 2002). At the time of the hearing, the Florida Supreme Court continued to have jurisdiction over Respondent's criminal case. Therefore, Respondent's convictions for BUI manslaughter remain in effect. Petitioner's Rule 2.24 provides that personnel absent from work without approved leave shall forfeit compensation and be subject to discipline, including termination. Unavailability for work due to incarceration does not constitute a basis for approved leave and is an unauthorized absence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Cardenas Department of Corrections No. 202263 Reception and Medical Center Post Office Box 628 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 323299-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the employment screening standards in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, can, without more, serve as the basis for the Petitioner's terminating the Respondent's employment as a teacher. If so, whether Respondent's actions were sufficient to warrant termination of his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the contents of Exhibits 1 through 4 attached to the Agreed Motion to Request Submission of Briefs in Lieu of Hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to these proceedings, Mr. Ano was employed by the School Board as a teacher, a position that he has held for approximately 21 years. The facts and events stated in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Offense Report prepared April 5, 2002,3 led to the arrest of Raymond Ano and his wife, Toby Ano, late on the evening of March 28, 2002, and the early morning hours of March 29, 2002. An Amended Information was filed on September 18, 2002, with the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, charging Raymond T. Ano with battery on a police officer, resisting an officer with violence, and defrauding an innkeeper. On October 31, 2002, Mr. Ano pled guilty to the offenses of battery (lesser), resisting an officer with violence, and defrauding an innkeeper. In an Order entered November 5, 2002, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced Mr. Ano to probation for 18 months for defrauding an innkeeper and for resisting an officer with violence and for 12 months for battery, with the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Ano did not report his arrest and guilty plea to the School Board; however, this violation of School Board policy is not, of itself, sufficient to justify termination of his employment.4 On July 16, 2004, the School Board voted to suspend Mr. Ano without pay and to terminate his employment, based on Mr. Ano's plea of guilty to the charge of resisting an officer with violence. The School Board followed its procedural rules in investigating this matter and in voting to terminate Mr. Ano's employment. An Amended Petition for Suspension without Pay and Dismissal from Employment was issued July 30, 2003, in which the School Board alleged that there was just cause for Mr. Ano's suspension and termination based on his failure to report his arrest and his plea of guilty to an offense enumerated under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, specifically, resisting arrest with violence, in violation of Section 843.01, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order: Finding that Mr. Ano's plea of guilty to a violation of Section 843.01(2)(gg), Florida Statutes, does not provide a legally-sufficient basis for terminating Mr. Ano's employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida; Reinstating Mr. Ano's employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida; and Paying Mr. Ano his back salary from the date of his suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 29th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment by the Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Hodgson was employed by the School Board as a custodian. She has been so employed since 1981. In 1999, Hodgson became deficient in the most basic element of a custodian's job--the duty to show up for work at her assigned school, in this case Miami Park Elementary (Miami Park). By July 1, 1999, Hodgson had accumulated ten unauthorized absences, enough to draw the attention of Principal Henry N. Crawford, Jr. (Crawford), and enough, standing alone, to justify termination under Petitioner's contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) the bargaining unit to which Hodgson belongs. At this time Crawford did not seek to terminate Hodgson's employment, although he could have. Instead, he counseled her regarding the School Board's reasonable and lawful requirement that she, like all employees, had the responsibility to inform the school's administration in advance of an absence, or as soon as practicable in an emergency. Nevertheless, on July 30, 1999, Hodgson left work at 6:46 p.m. instead of at the end of her shift at 11:30 p.m. Her area of the building was not cleaned properly and she was docked one half day's pay. For a considerable time after that incident, Hodgson's attendance improved. But in March 2000, her attendance again became a problem. Hodgson was absent 13 times between March 3 and March 20. Crawford again attempted to work with Hodgson, authorizing six of those absences. At the same time, he informed her of the obvious: that this level of absenteeism impeded the effective operation of the worksite. Crawford encouraged Hodgson to consider taking advantage of the School Board's generous leave-of-absence policy in order to preserve her good standing at work while taking the time necessary to deal with the issues which were causing her to miss work. Respondent neither replied to Crawford's proposal that she consider a leave of absence nor improved upon her by now sporadic attendance. Thereafter, Crawford requested assistance from OPS. On April 11, 2000, OPS wrote to advise Hodgson that she was absent without authority and that her absences were deemed abandonment of position. She was directed to provide written notification to OPS to review her situation or her employment would be terminated by the School Board. For a short time, Hodgson took this threat seriously enough to improve her attendance, but by now Crawford had a much shorter fuse with respect to Hodgson's disregard for workplace policies regarding attendance. When, on May 11, 2000, Respondent was an hour and a half late to work, Crawford sent her a memorandum the next day, again reminding her that she must report to work on time and that she was to report any absences or tardiness to school administration in a timely manner. Crawford wrote two additional warning memos to Hodgson in June 2000, but was unsuccessful in persuading her to improve her attendance or to discuss her situation, including the advisability of a leave of absence, in a forthright manner. Finally, Crawford directed Respondent to attend a disciplinary conference known as a Conference for the Record (CFR) on July 3, 2000, to discuss her absenteeism. At the CFR, Crawford again gave Respondent face-to-face directives to be present at work and when absences were unavoidable, to call the school in a timely manner. Two additional formal disciplinary conferences were held between the July 3 CFR and Respondent's termination. Crawford, having been unsuccessful in his efforts to generate honest communication with Hodgson about why a 20-year employee had stopped fulfilling her most basic job requirement, attempted to refer her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). EAP offers employees assistance in resolving personal problems in a manner which allows the employee to also fulfill work obligations. If such accommodations cannot be made, EAP counselors assist in helping the employee separate from his employment in a manner which does not blemish his resume. Supervisors such as Crawford may make referrals to the EAP whenever they feel an employee can and should be helped, and EAP services are also available for the asking to any School Board employee who wishes to take advantage of those services. No one is required to use EAP services, and Hodgson declined to do so. Hodgson's by now chronic absenteeism persisted. Her colleagues on the custodial staff tried, some more graciously than others, to cover her assigned duties, but Crawford was fielding an increasing number of complaints from teachers regarding their classrooms not being serviced. Morale among custodians declined in the face of the administration's seeming inability to control Hodgson. During the last two years of Hodgson's employment, she had 175 unauthorized absences. Eighty-one of those occurred in the last 12 months prior to her termination. By way of defense, Hodgson said that she developed diabetes in the past three years and that most of her absences were medically necessary. She offered voluminous stacks of paper which she claims document legitimate medical problems which made it impossible for her to work. Additional exhibits relate to a young relative she felt obligated to drive to medical appointments during her work hours. These exhibits prove little, if anything. Individually and collectively they are neither self-authenticating nor self-explanatory, and many had not been previously provided to Crawford in connection with her failure to appear for work, nor disclosed to the School Board in compliance with the pre-hearing order in this case. But even if these documents had been properly authenticated and would have in fact justified an extended medical and/or family hardship leave of absence, the evidence fails to establish that they were tendered to Crawford at the time Hodgson was absent. Hodgson did not seek medical or disability leave, either individually or through her collective bargaining unit. Hodgson offered no testimony to contradict the School Board's evidence regarding the dozens of occasions on which she failed to show up for work. Neither did she offer any evidence that her repeated failure to comply with attendance policies was justified due to any misconduct on the part of any of Petitioner's employees. At all times material to this case, the School Board was in compliance with applicable statutory and contractual provisions concerning employee discipline and termination with respect to Hodgson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice E. Hodgson 14020 Northeast 3rd Court, No. 5 North Miami, Florida 33161 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, George Hershel Allen, should suffer revocation of his teaching certificate or other sanction authorized in the pertinent provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, if it be proven that he committed the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this proceeding. Specifically it must be determined whether the Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(c) and (f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner, Betty Castor as Commissioner of Education and the Respondent George Hershel Allen, by and through their attorneys stipulated and agreed as follows, in resolution of all disputes between those parties. The Respondent George Hershel Allen holds Florida teaching certificate number 576534, issued on November 4, 1986, by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of elementary education. The Respondent George Hershel Allen, was employed as a teacher in the Duval County School District. On or about February 25, 1991, the Commissioner of Education filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, a copy of which is attached to the stipulation of facts and incorporated by reference in this Recommended Order, alleging violations of Florida Statutes, Section 231.28(1)(c) and (f). By this stipulation, the Respondent revokes his answer to the Administrative Complaint and elects not to contest any allegation of the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent admits to the violations alleged in paragraphs 2, 3, 5. The parties agreed to the following: Respondent's teaching certificate is revoked for a ten year period beginning on the date the Education Practices Commission enters its final order. During the tenth year or subsequently, the Respondent shall engage in counseling with a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and shall receive treatment as necessary in order for him to return to the classroom. Upon completion of treatment the psychologist or psychiatrist must provide written verification that the Respondent is capable of assuming all responsibilities of an educator. The Education Practices Commission reserves the right to get a second opinion from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and the defendant will make him available and cooperate if asked to do so. Upon reemployment with any Florida School District, the Respondent shall be placed on three years probation. During the period of his probation, the Respondent agrees to arrange for his immediate supervisor to monitor his performance and prepare quarterly reports to the Education Practices Commission concerning his performance on forms to be provided by the Education Practices Commission. The report shall state whether or not any problems similar to those described in the Administrative Complaint have occurred. The Respondent agreed to the stipulation and acknowledged that copies of the Administrative Complaint and the Joint Stipulation shall be placed in the Respondent's personnel certification files. If illness or temporarily disability should prevent the Respondent from teaching in the probation period, any failure of the Respondent to obtain reports as to his performance will not cause him to be in violation of this agreement. However, the probation period shall be lengthened by the amount of time that the Respondent is so prevented from complying with this stipulation. The parties agreed that the stipulation shall be submitted to the Education Practices Commission for its consideration and adoption as the Commission's final disposition of the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. The Commissioner and the Respondent understand that the Education Practices Commission has the discretion to reject the stipulation and order a full evidential hearing into the charges if, in its judgment, it deems such action as necessary or appropriate. The Respondent acknowledged that he fully understands the provisions of the stipulation, the contents of the Administrative Complaint and his rights to an evidentiary on the allegations set forth in the Complaint. The Respondent acknowledged that he has received legal advice concerning the execution of the stipulation and that he is under no duress, coercion or undue influence in signing the stipulation. The Respondent requests that the Education Practices Commission accept and adopt the terms of the stipulation as its final disposition of this proceeding. If the Respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stipulation the Respondent agrees that the Education Practices Commission shall advise the Commissioner of Education of the non-compliance for the purpose of renewing the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint. The above stipulation was freely entered into between the parties and they agreed that this matter remain a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes proceeding and that this stipulation of facts be incorporated into the Recommended Order as the Findings of Fact to be made in this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the testimony of record and the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, filed with the Hearing Officer and stipulated to be incorporated into the Recommended Order, the stipulation is accepted. That eventuality results in no disputed material fact remaining pending before the Hearing Officer and accordingly, it is therefore recommended that, based upon the stipulation of the parties, that jurisdiction of this matter be relinquished to the Petitioner agency named above. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 E. Union Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Homer C. Bliss, Esquire 503 E. Monroe Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Eduation Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are as follows: Whether Respondent had an instructional employment contract that required cause for termination. Alternatively, if Respondent had a contract requiring cause for termination, whether there is cause for termination of that contract within the meaning of Section 231.36, Florida Statues, and Rule 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Escambia County School Board (Board), is a unit of local government charged with the operation of the public school system in Escambia County, Florida, including the employment of teachers under certain contract conditions. Contracts and terms of service for regular members of the instructional staff are required to be in writing. See Section 230.23(5)(d), Florida Statutes. The Escambia County School Board also provides instructional services to juveniles under detention at the Juvenile Justice Center. Respondent was employed by the Board as a teacher during the 1994-1995 school year. During the 1994-1995 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach at the Juvenile Detention Center in Pensacola, Florida. Student S.C. met Respondent at the Pensacola Detention Center of the Juvenile Justice Center while he was an instructor at the Center. After she left the Pensacola Detention Center, she moved to North Carolina to live with her step-mother and father. While there, she wrote to Respondent; and sometime in early September she allegedly received correspondence from Respondent, including one letter dated September 5, 1995. The letter S.C. sent and the letter of September 5, 1995, do not appear to be discussing the same things. Respondent turned the letter S.C. wrote him over to his supervisor at school when he received it. Respondent denies writing or sending the letter of September 5, 1995 addressed to S.C. The September 5 letter's envelope had a return address which belonged to Respondent, and was signed "Ri" or "Rc". However, S.C. was unable to testify as to whom the letter actually came from. She did not recognize the handwriting as that of Respondent. More importantly, the Petitioner attempted to have the handwriting analyzed to determine whether the Respondent wrote the letter. The handwriting analysis determined that "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a conclusive opinion" that Respondent wrote the September 5, 1995 letter. The Respondent also has been accused of sending other letters to people, including a threatening letter to the President of the United States, which he denied having done. All these letters came from a Rick Sapp in Pensacola but were not from the Respondent. So, too, during the pendency of these proceedings, an accusation was made that the Respondent had sent a letter to another student at the detention center. The Respondent did not send such a letter. The letter alleged to have been sent by the Respondent other than being signed "Rick" cannot be established to have been from the Respondent since it omits his phone number, address, and has a different return address and name on the envelope and was mailed from Panama City. Student S.C. ran away from North Carolina sometime in September 1995. She was subsequently detained at the Panama City Detention Center. S.C. testified that Respondent called her on the telephone, gaining access by identifying himself as a counsellor. Respondent allegedly told her that he was in love with her and wanted her to call him. Respondent allegedly gave her his telephone number. However, when she reported the call to the staff, other than transferring a "call from a counsellor," she did not say the call was from Respondent but someone sounding like Respondent. S.C. provided a telephone number to the detention worker who called it and asked to speak to Respondent. The party answering the phone said that Respondent was not there and identified himself as Respondent's roommate. S.C. testified she recognized the voice as that of Respondent which recognition is not credible. The Panama City Detention Center maintains a log of phone calls and activities occurring at the facility. The log indicates that on November 19, 1995, the controller received a call for S.C. The controller reported the caller identified himself as the counsellor for S.C. After receiving the call, student S.C. reported to the supervisor that the caller was not her counsellor, but was someone sounding like Respondent. S.C. reported Respondent had left a telephone number which in fact is one of Respondent's telephone numbers. Gene Rochelle called that number on the speaker phone asking for Respondent. The party answering the phone stated he was Respondent's roommate and that Respondent was not at home. Student S.C.'s report and the subsequent telephone call to the same number were noted in the log of the Juvenile Justice Center. S.C. also claimed to have received a letter from Respondent which she turned in to the Panama City Detention Center. The letter, although signed "Rick," has a return address showing the name "Hess" and the address, 1723 17th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32501 (not Respondent's) and appears to have been postmarked in Panama City, Florida. The letter also appears to have different handwriting than the September 5, 1996 letter. Although the letter asks S.C. to call or write, it omits the Respondent's telephone number or address and suggests only that a call be made to 411 in Pensacola to find it. Respondent denies calling or writing S.C. while she was at the Panama City Detention Center and was surprised that she had been there. On the whole, while it may be true that a number of letters were sent, the evidence falls short of disclosing that Respondent sent any of the letters, including the letter of September 5, 1995. The evidence regarding any of these contacts is at best inconclusive. Therefore the charges against Respondent involving S.C. should be dismissed. The District also alleges Respondent maintained an inappropriate relationship with a male student from the detention center, T.R. The original allegations were made by the older brother and lawful custodian of T.R., Michael Jarrell. Although the guardian of the student, T.R., did make an initial statement to Dr. Garber of the School Board accusing the Respondent of wrongdoing, shortly thereafter, upon learning the identity of the person earlier believed to have been the Respondent, T.R.'s guardian, Michael Jarrell, made a second statement clarifying that the person who was identified as Respondent was not the man who had been improperly interacting with his minor brother. Given these facts, the Petitioner has failed to produce any substantial evidence to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with T.R. Therefore the charge of misconduct as it relates to T.R. should be dismissed. Prior to the beginning of the new school year Respondent's 1994-1995 employment contract had expired. On August 14, 1995, William McArthur, Director of Human Resources for the Escambia County School District, signed, at the direction of Superintendent W. L. Maloy, an "Instructional/Administrative Appointment Request" form appointing Respondent to the position of teacher for the 1995-1996 school year. The practice of the Superintendent's office is to fill out the appointment request form on people whom the Superintendent intends to recommend for an annual contract to the Board. The form is placed in the teacher's personnel file and then the Superintendent formally recommends the employment of that person to the School Board by submitting the request form to the Board. The recommendation is required by statute to be in written form. See Section 230.23, Florida Statutes. The Superintendent of Escambia County Schools, among other things, is authorized by statute to recommend to the School Board those employees he determines should receive instructional contracts. See Section 230.33(7), Florida Statutes. The School Board, once recommendation is made by the Superintendent for employment of an instructor pursuant to contract, must act on that recommendation rejecting the Superintendent's recommendations only for good cause. Section 230.23(5), Florida Statutes. The Superintendent never submitted the request form nor recommended Respondent for employment to the School Board. The Superintendent of Escambia County Schools directed William McArthur, Director of Human Resources, to contact Respondent and tell him to return to work as an instructor at the Juvenile Detention Center in Pensacola, Florida. Mr. McArthur contacted Respondent who then reported to the Juvenile Detention Center for instructional duties around August 14, 1995. Since the Superintendent had not recommended Respondent to the Board, the Board never approved a written annual contract for Respondent. Therefore, Respondent could only be working under an oral or implied contract on a day to day basis with no specified term of employment. Approximately one month after Respondent went to work at the Juvenile Detention Center, Dr. Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, was notified by a representative of the State Attorney's Office at the Juvenile Detention Center of a complaint regarding Respondent from a parent relative to his alleged communications with S.C., a female juvenile that had been detained at the center. The representative of the Office of the State Attorney at the Detention Center expressed concern about letters Respondent had allegedly sent to S.C. and wanted him removed from that Detention Center. The School District subsequently received copies of the letters Respondent was alleged to have written to the female student formerly under his instruction at the detention center. Because of the complaint and letters, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay while the District investigated the allegations. At the conclusion of the investigation the Respondent was notified by letter dated October 16, 1995, that the Superintendent would not recommend to the Board the award of an annual instructional contract. On October 16, 1995, Respondent was presented with a letter notifying him that he would not be recommended for any further employment with the school district. The October 16, 1995, letter was the first written notification that his employment would terminate. Respondent stopped working for the School Board on October 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner, Escambia County School Board dismissing the charges of misconduct but upholding the termination of the Respondent, Ricky Sapp, on October 16, 1995 since he was not recommended for annual contact status and did not fall under the protections of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 through 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 through 22, 27, 28 and 30 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 13, 23 through 26, 29 and 31 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons and Whittaker, P.A. 17 Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 William Maloy, Superintendent Escambia County School Board Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent worked for Petitioner as a custodian at Petitioner's Longleaf Elementary School (Longleaf) in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent worked as a custodian at Longleaf for at least four years. Longleaf provides instruction to students from kindergarten through the 5th grade. The school has approximately 750 students and 37 certified teachers. In total, approximately 75 employees work at the school, including administrative staff, support personnel such as clerk-typists, teacher assistants, bus drivers, kitchen staff, and custodians. Longleaf has 35 classrooms. Five classrooms are located in each of five pods. The other classrooms are freestanding self-contained portables. In addition to the classrooms, Longleaf has numerous offices, halls, buildings, or structures including restrooms, kitchen facilities, and a cafeteria. At all times relevant here, Longleaf's custodial staff consisted of five employees, including Respondent and Willie Walker, the custodial supervisor/head custodian. On a normal school day, the custodian designated as the day mate arrived at the school at 7:00 a.m., to work an eight-hour shift. Respondent, Mr. Walker, and one other custodian began their shift around noon every day. Edward Jones, the fifth custodian, began his eight-hour shift at 3:00 p.m. Regardless of the time that the custodians began their shifts, the custodial team was responsible for cleaning 18,000 square feet of space per day. At the beginning of each school year, the custodians received individual work assignments. Each custodian, including Mr. Walker, was assigned specific rooms and outside areas to keep clean on a daily basis. They were also given additional duties on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis. Each custodian had a full day of work everyday. Occasionally, Petitioner will furnish a school with a substitute custodian when a regular custodian is absent. However, most of the time, substitute custodians are not available unless at least one-third of the staff is absent. Therefore, when only one custodian is absent, the custodial team has to take on additional work to cover the work assignments of the absent colleague. If two custodians are absent at the same time and no substitute is available, the remaining employees have to almost double their work schedule. When one custodian is out of work for a number of successive days, other custodians will also take time off. When the custodians are required to take on additional work assignments for long periods of time, they need time off to recoup from the extra work. The principal and the head custodian at each school are the only employees that Petitioner hires for twelve months. The remaining custodians usually start to work about two weeks before the students begin a new school year. They work for two weeks after the students finish a school year. The school year begins in July of one year and ends in June of the next year. When a school custodian requests a leave of absence for any reason, the school's principal must first approve or disapprove the request. The request form is then sent to Petitioner's human resource department. Next, the human resource department sends the request form to the school superintendent, who must approve or disapprove the requested leave. Petitioner, sitting as a collegial body, makes the final decision whether to approve or disapprove a request for leave of absence, with or without pay. Dr. Joyce Payton has been principal of Longleaf since 1997. In March 1999, Dr. Payton had a counseling session with Respondent. During the meeting, Dr. Payton and Respondent discussed the following: (a) Respondent's failure to record the accurate sign-in time when he arrived at work; and (b) Respondent's excessive tardiness. In June 1999, Respondent expressed his desire to transfer to another school because he could not get along with Mr. Walker. However, Respondent never submitted a formal request for a transfer to posted openings at other schools. In the summer of 1999, Respondent was arrested and charged with domestic battery. Respondent was placed on one year of probation with a $45 per month supervision fee. He was also required to complete 24 domestic violence classes at the cost of $15 per class. On August 9, 1999, Dr. Payton informed Respondent that all annual leave had to be approved by her in advance. She also stated that she would not approve any more sick leave for Respondent unless he called before 12:30 p.m., or furnished a doctor's note. Respondent was absent for 10 of the first 33 working days for the 1999-2000 school year. These absences took place between July 19, 1999, and September 1, 1999. Dr. Payton did not approve Petitioner's sick leave request form for three of these days, August 10-12, 1999, because he did not have a note containing a doctor's signature. The emergency room discharge instructions dated August 10, 1999, which was attached to Respondent's sick leave request form, states that Respondent should rest and avoid strenuous activity for the balance of that day. This discharge notice was not signed by a doctor and did not explain Respondent's absence on August 11 and 12, 1999. On September 1, 1999, Respondent was in an automobile accident. Between September 2, 1999, and November 30, 1999, Petitioner was out of work on approved sick leave for a total of 52 workdays. The doctor released Respondent to return to work with no restrictions on December 1, 1999. On January 3, 2000, Respondent requested sick leave for two hours on January 3, 2000, and for all day on January 4 and 5, 2000. The record does not contain a doctor's note to explain this absence. Respondent was absent even though Dr. Payton did not approve this leave request. On May 22, 2000, Dr. Payton meet with Respondent to assess his performance for the 1999-2000 school year. The rating form indicates that Respondent met the requirements of his job. However, the form contains the following comment by Dr. Payton: Mr. Sinkfield was out a total of 97 days this year. Fifty-two of these days were a result of a car accident. We have talked about the significance of his time at work improving next year. Respondent signed this document, indicating that he had an opportunity to discuss the assessment with his employer. In July 2000, Respondent was arrested for violation of probation on grounds that he had not completed all of the required domestic violence classes. He was allowed five days to settle his affairs before turning himself in on July 14, 2000. For several days, Respondent visited Longleaf in an effort to notify Dr. Payton about his impending incarceration. No one was in the school office during these visits. On July 14, 2000, Respondent's mother drove him to Longleaf to see if Dr. Payton was there. Finding no one at the school, Respondent's mother drove him to Petitioner's headquarters where Respondent spoke to Ms. Ella Sims, Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources. Respondent explained to Ms. Sims that he was going to be incarcerated and needed to request a leave of absence. Ms. Sims informed Respondent that he needed Dr. Payton's approval for a leave of absence. She did not give Respondent a leave of absence request form. Respondent's mother then drove him to his probation officer so that he could turn himself in. He was jailed without bond. Inmates at the Escambia County Jail are permitted to make outside telephone calls. However, inmates may only call numbers that they write on a list at the time they are booked. Inmates may add telephone numbers to this list only once every six weeks. The inmate telephone system is a fully automated system. Each completed local call costs one dollar. A call is completed when a person, answering machine, or other electronic device answers the call. Inmates may attempt up to ten local calls per day. Indigent inmates are allowed to make one completed telephone call every seven days. Inmates may make telephone calls with the assistance of a counselor or chaplain in certain verifiable emergency situations such as the death of a family member. When taken into custody, Respondent listed the telephone numbers of his family. He also included the telephone number of Longleaf. While in custody, Respondent successfully made telephone calls to his family. He was unsuccessful in completing a call to Dr. Payton at Longleaf. He could not get the counselor or chaplain to help him call the school. During the summer of 2000, Longleaf changed its telephone number. A person dialing the old number would get a recording announcing the new number. For some unexplained reason, Longleaf's change-of-number recording did not play when Respondent called the school using the old number. Respondent was unable to complete a telephone call to the school even when he amended his telephone list to include the school's new number. Because he was incarcerated, Respondent did not report to work on July 17, 2000, as required for the 2000-2001 school year. Respondent's mother called Dr. Payton that day to inform her that Respondent was in jail and would not report to work until at least September 2, 2001. Dr. Payton told Respondent's mother to have Respondent call the school from jail. Dr. Payton did not receive a telephone call from Respondent. She did not authorize leave for Respondent from July 17, 2001, forward in time. Instead, Dr. Payton decided to seek termination of Respondent's job. Respondent's mother visited Longleaf early in August of 2000. While she was at the school, Respondent's mother told Dr. Payton that Respondent could not call the school from jail. After talking to Respondent's probation officer, Dr. Payton told Respondent's mother that Respondent could call the school from the jail and that he needed to do so personally. Dr. Payton sent Respondent a memorandum dated August 4, 2000. The memo advised Respondent that disciplinary action was being considered due to his unauthorized absence and/or his excessive absence. Specifically, the memo states as follows: You failed to return as scheduled for further employment July 17, 2000. You did not notify your employer that you would not be at work as scheduled. You have been absent without authorization or approved leave since that date. You have previously been counseled regarding excessive absences. The memo gave Respondent the right to appear with a representative for a meeting in Dr. Payton's office on August 8, 2000. Petitioner hand-delivered the memo to Respondent. On or about August 10, 2000, Respondent sent Dr. Payton a letter. The letter states that Respondent expected to be in jail until he went back to court on September 1, 2000. Respondent requested Dr. Payton to keep his job if he could not get out of jail. Respondent did not request Dr. Payton to furnish him with leave-of-absence request forms. By letter dated August 29, 2000, Dr. Payton informed Respondent that a disciplinary action was being considered because of his unauthorized absence and/or his excessive absence. The letter reviewed the history of Respondent's absences for the 1999-2000 school year. The letter also stated that Respondent failed to notify Dr. Payton at home or at work that he would not be at work on July 17, 2000. Finally, the letter advised Respondent that there would be a meeting in Dr. Payton's office on September 1, 2000, and that Petitioner and his association representative had a right to attend the meeting. Petitioner hand-delivered this letter to Respondent. Petitioner sent Respondent a Notice of Disciplinary Action dated September 6, 2000, advising him of proposed action to dismiss him effective September 20, 2000. The proposed dismissal was based on the following: (a) excessive absences in the 1999-2000 school year; and (b) failing to report for work on July 17, 2000, and being absent without authorization since that time. On or about September 11, 2000, Respondent wrote a letter directed to Ms. Sims. In the letter, Respondent sought to postpone the consideration of his termination by Petitioner on September 19, 2000. On September 19, 2000, Petitioner approved Dr. Payton's recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment. Respondent was incarcerated until September 24, 2000. In extreme cases in which an employee is physically incapable of requesting a leave of absence in person, such as when an employee is in the hospital or in jail awaiting trial, Petitioner's department of human resources will, upon proper request, make accommodations to provide the employee with the necessary forms to request a leave of absence. In this case, Respondent was serving a sentence previously imposed; he was not awaiting trial. According to Petitioner's practice and procedure, being absent from work because of incarceration does not constitute an excused absence. If Respondent had asked Dr. Payton after he was incarcerated for a leave-of-absence form, she would have directed him to Petitioner's human resource department. She would have made this referral because she had already made the determination to seek termination of Respondent's employment. Under the facts here, Petitioner had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment even if he had timely applied for a leave of absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 13th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
