The Issue The issues are whether the allegations of the Petition for Termination of Employment are correct, and, if so, whether the Lee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Valarie Strawder (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a food service worker at Riverdale High School. On May 16, 2008, the Respondent became involved in an altercation with a 15-year-old male student ("J.T.") enrolled in the Riverdale Middle School. At the time of the incident, the middle school and high school were co-located on the same campus. For several years prior to the altercation, the Respondent had been the girlfriend of the student's father. According to the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent, the situation became tense after the man fathered a child by another woman, but the Respondent remained involved with him. The Respondent testified also without contradiction that for various reasons involving the other woman, her boyfriend's school-aged children did not like the Respondent and engaged in routine harassment of the Respondent. There was evidence that both the Respondent and the children had complained about each other to school officials. J.T. was described by one of the school's teacher's as "mouthy." The Respondent also testified as to physical damage that had occurred to her automobile, but the evidence was insufficient to attribute the cause of the damage to the children. The Riverdale cafeteria was designed to separate the dining areas from the combined kitchen and food service areas ("kitchen"). Doors from the kitchen to the dining area were locked from inside the kitchen to prevent unauthorized entry by students. Food was served through openings between the dining and kitchen areas. The openings ("windows") could be securely covered by rolling metal shutters mounted above the windows. At approximately 12:30 p.m., on May 16, 2008, J.T. was in the dining area and, through a window, was engaged in a conversation with Ludine Waters, a food service worker who was located in the kitchen. The Respondent entered the dining area from the kitchen, walked to the open window, and pulled down the rolling metal shutter located above the window through which J.T. and Ms. Waters were talking. The Respondent testified that she saw J.T. standing at the window, but was not aware that he was talking with Ms. Waters at the time the Respondent closed the window. Immediately after the Respondent closed the window, J.T. spoke to the Respondent and called her a "rude bitch" and a "bald-headed bitch." As the Respondent re-entered the kitchen through the secured doors, she replied "your mammy" to the student, apparently intending to convey a derogatory remark about J.T.'s mother. After the Respondent re-entered the kitchen, J.T. threw a beverage bottle through a window that remained open between the dining area and the kitchen. The Respondent then observed J.T. taking off his coat and stating that he would "beat her ass," indicating to the Respondent that J.T. was preparing to fight with her. The Respondent testified that she said to J.T., "if you think you can beat me, bring it." The Respondent also testified at the hearing that she believed that J.T. was "just playing," but the Respondent's subsequent interaction with J.T. does not support the Respondent's testimony. After the Respondent told J.T. to "bring it," J.T. proceeded towards the door into the kitchen and so did the Respondent. At the time both arrived at the door, it opened and the two began to fight. The evidence fails to establish who opened the door, but given that the door locks were designed to prevent students entering from the dining area, it is reasonable to presume that the door was opened from inside the kitchen. The physical altercation between the Respondent and J.T. was brief. Both the Respondent and the student struck and hit each other, and the student pulled off the Respondent's wig. The Respondent and J.T. were separated by a physical education teacher who was in the cafeteria at the time of the incident and who, upon observing the commotion, rapidly moved to quell the disturbance by pulling the student away from the Respondent. The Respondent has asserted that she was acting in self-defense at the time of the altercation, but the evidence fails to support the assertion. In addition to the doorway where the altercation occurred, the kitchen had a second exit that connected to a staff dining room towards the rear of the kitchen. The Respondent made no effort to go to the staff dining room where she could have avoided further interaction with J.T. Additionally, there was a telephone in the staff dining room and another telephone in the cafeteria manager's office. The Respondent made no effort to call for assistance or security prior to engaging in the fight with the student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the Respondent's employment as a food service worker. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. James W. Browder, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Raymond Grosneck, is a teacher at Safety Harbor Middle School in Pinellas County. He has been a teacher there for 26 years and has been on continuing contract since August, 1970. (However, his active teacher certificate expired on or about June 30, 1992, and has not been renewed, so he is not teaching during the 1992/1993 school year as of this time.) While a teacher at Safety Harbor, the Respondent's only discipline has been a written reprimand in 1985. See Finding 11, below. On or about March 6, 1992, towards the end of one of the Respondent's classes, two female pupils asked the Respondent if they could "clap" the classroom's chalky blackboard erasers. The Respondent gave them permission. As usual, the pupils bent down and leaned out the classroom window and began clapping the erasers, both against each other and against the side of the outside of the building. While they were doing this, the Respondent warned them not to get any chalk dust on the bricks to either side of the window, as opposed to on the white, painted stucco directly below the window. When they finished, the Respondent walked over to the window to check and saw chalk dust on the bricks. The Respondent angrily confronted the pupils in a loud voice about the chalk and about having disobeyed his instructions. (It is not clear whether he gave his instructions to the two pupils before or after they already got the chalk on the bricks; in any event, both he and other school authorities previously had given the students those instructions.) He asked which of the two did it. When they both denied it, he angrily and in a loud voice ordered the one he suspected to come to the window, where he still was standing, and look at the chalk marks, which he viewed as the proof that she was lying. When the pupil hesitated, he walked over to her and grabbed her upper arm in a motion that had the effect of a combination slap, which made an audible slapping sound, and grab. He then pulled the pupil over to the window, using a jerking motion. The episode resulted in a temporary reddening of the skin of the pupil's upper arm where it had been "slap/grabbed." The Respondent's words and actions upset the pupil. When tears began to well up in her eyes, and the Respondent knew she was about to cry, he told her to go get the assistant principal responsible for the class. Instead, the pupil went, crying on the way, to the nearest washroom to wipe her tears and try to regain her composure. There, she saw another pupil who asked her what happened. When she told him that the Respondent had hit her, he went to get the assistant principal. The assistant principal was not there, but a counselor was, and she was led to the washroom. Soon after, the Respondent came looking for the pupil, as she had not yet returned to the classroom with the assistant principal. When he joined the group, the counselor informed him of the pupil's accusation that he had hit her. The Respondent denied hitting the pupil and insisted on going directly to the assistant principal to resolve the matter once and for all. The assistant principal still was not in his office when the group arrived. In ensuing discussion with some other pupils in the class who had gone looking for the pupil after the period ended to see how she was, some of the other pupils contradicted the Respondent's version of what happened. Angrily, the Respondent stormed out of the office, slamming the door hard enough to jar loose a picture hanging from the office wall. On his way out, the Respondent was heard to say words to the effect that he did not "need this job." During the lunch period that followed, some of the pupils discussed the events that had transpired. About a week later, the Respondent and his attorney met with school administrators and other education officials in the school principal's office concerning the incident. At the meeting, the Respondent was informed as to what the school's investigation of the incident had revealed to that point and as to the charges being considered. As the Respondent and his attorney exited the office, while still in the area of the administrative offices suite, the Respondent was heard by three pupil aides to ask his attorney rhetorically, "was that a bunch of bullshit, or what?" The Respondent did not know that the students were there, but he knew pupil aides ordinarily work there, and he asked the question in a normal tone of voice, not giving thought to the possibility that it would be overheard by pupils at the school. As a result of these incidents, the Respondent's rapport with at least some of his pupils, who began to think that he was "mean," temporarily was impaired. Within a short time, however, he reestablished a good teaching relationship with most, if not all, of his pupils. 1/ For a short time after the incident, the school principal felt it necessary to monitor the Respondent more closely to insure against a repetition. The evidence is not clear whether closer monitoring actually occurred. In any case, no further problems involving the Respondent were observed. The use of corporal punishment by a teacher is against the official policies of the Pinellas County School Board. It also is against the official policies of the Pinellas County School Board for a teacher to lay hands on students to control their movement except as necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others. The 1985 reprimand indicates that the Respondent was accused of getting angry and yelling in the face of a pupil for getting chalk dust on several desk tops and then denying doing it. He also was accused of angrily tipping over the desk in which the pupil was sitting and leaning backwards. At the time, the Respondent denied tipping the desk over backwards but admitted losing his temper and losing control of the situation. He agreed to apologize to the pupil for losing his temper. It was not determined whether the Respondent in fact tipped the desk over backwards. Some of the witnesses to the incident said he did, but about the same number said he did not.
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 reprimanding the Respondent, Raymond Grosneck, for the matters referred to in Conclusions 18 and 19, but refraining from suspending him. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1992, 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 20th day of October, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007)1/, by terminating Petitioner's employment in retaliation for her filing a formal grievance asserting that a co-worker made a racially discriminatory comment to her at a staff meeting.
Findings Of Fact The District Board of Trustees of LCCC is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, an African-American female, was hired by the College and began work on January 29, 2007. She worked in the cosmetology department as a Teaching Assistant II until the College terminated her employment on June 28, 2007. In addition to Petitioner, the College's cosmetology department consisted of two instructors, Carol McLean and Vicki Glenn. Ms. McLean was also the department coordinator, meaning that she supervised Petitioner and Ms. Glenn. The instructors performed classroom instruction and supervised students "on the floor" in the department's laboratory, where the students practiced their skills on clients who made appointments with the department to have their hair styled. Petitioner's duties included answering the telephone, making client appointments, ordering and stocking cosmetology supplies, and recording the hours and services performed by the students. Petitioner was a licensed cosmetologist and was expected to assist on the floor of the lab, but only when an instructor determined that her presence was necessary. Petitioner was not authorized to perform classroom instruction. Petitioner was at all times employed on a probationary basis under LCCC Policy and Procedure 6Hx12:8-04, which provides that all newly hired career service employees must serve a probationary period of six calendar months. This Policy and Procedure also requires that conferences be held with the employee at the end of two and four months of employment. The conferences are to include written performance appraisals and should be directed at employee development, areas of weakness or strength, and any additional training required to improve performance. Petitioner acknowledged that she attended orientation sessions for new employees during which this Policy and Procedure was discussed.4/ The evidence at hearing established that the orientation sessions covered, among other subjects, an explanation of the probationary period, the College's discipline and grievance procedures, and how to find the College's Policies and Procedures on the internet. The employee orientation process also required Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Carol McLean, to explain 14 additional items, including Petitioner's job description and the College's parking policies. The evidence established that Ms. McLean covered these items with Petitioner. Petitioner's first written evaluation covered the period from January 29, 2007 through March 29, 2007. The evaluation was completed by Ms. McLean on April 13, 2007, and approved by the Dean of Occupational Programs, Tracy Hickman, on April 30, 2007. The College's "Support Staff Job Performance Evaluation" form provides numerical grades in the categories of work knowledge, work quality, work quantity and meeting deadlines, dependability, co-operation, judgment in carrying out assignments, public relations, and overall performance. A score of 1 or 2 in any category is deemed "unsatisfactory." A score of 3 or 4 is "below norm." A score of 5 or 6 is "expected norm." A score of 7 or 8 is "above norm." A score of 9 or 10 is rated "exceptional." Petitioner's scores in each area were either 5 or 6, within the "expected norm." Ms. McLean graded Petitioner's overall performance as a 6. The evaluation form also provides questions that allow the supervisor to evaluate the employee's performance in a narrative format. In response to a question regarding Petitioner's strengths, Ms. McLean wrote that Petitioner "has demonstrated she is very capable handling conflicts/situations concerning clients. She is also good working with the students when needed. Her computer skills/knowledge has been an asset." In response to a question regarding Petitioner's weaknesses, Ms. McLean wrote, "Kay5/ needs to be a little more organized. I feel confident with the move to the new building, she will be able to set her office up to be more efficient for herself." Petitioner testified that she has excellent organizational skills and that she is, in fact, a "neat freak." Her problem was the utter disorganization of the cosmetology department at the time she started her job. She could not see her desk for the pile of papers and other materials on it. Boxes were piled in the middle of the floor. There were more than 100 unanswered messages in the recorded message queue. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. McLean nor Ms. Glenn could tell her how to proceed on any of these matters, and that she was therefore required to obtain advice via telephone calls to either Wendy Saunders, the previous teaching assistant, or Jeanette West, secretary to the Dean of Occupational Programs. Neither Ms. McLean nor Ms. Glenn recalled the complete departmental disorganization attested to by Petitioner at the outset of her employment. In fact, Ms. McLean recalled having to work 80-hour weeks to restore order to the department's workspace after Petitioner was discharged. No other witness testified as to disorganization prior to Petitioner's hiring. The evidence presented at the hearing established that Petitioner dramatically overstated the poor condition of the cosmetology department's offices at the time she started work, and also greatly overstated any contribution she made to improve its organization. Petitioner's second and final evaluation covered the period from March 29, 2007, through May 29, 2007. The evaluation was completed by Ms. McLean on May 22, 2007, and approved by Dean Hickman on May 23, 2007. Petitioner's numerical scores in each of the categories, including overall performance, was 4, meaning that her performance was "below norm." In a typewritten attachment, Ms. McLean wrote: Employee Improvement: Strengths: Kay is very good with the students and has strong desires to help them. Weaknesses: A concern is Kay's words and actions have shown that she would rather teach than be in the office. There is still a lack of organization in the office. We have had a couple incidents where we have to search for invoices, etc. I am still receiving complaints about the phone not being answered. Other comments: Too often Kay's actions have made it difficult for the department to operate effectively. Since Kay's arrival, it have discussed [sic] that each person must respect the protocol of communicating within the chain of command. On numerous occasions Kay ignored those instructions, In spite of my direct instructions to notify/discuss an incident report to Dean Hickman before doing anything else with it, Kay distributed it to others.6/ The College terminated Petitioner's employment on June 28, 2007, roughly five months after she began work and well within the six-month probationary period. Petitioner's dismissal was due to inadequate job performance and to several episodes displaying poor judgment and disregard of the College's rules and regulations. As to day-to-day job performance, the evidence established that Petitioner often had to be asked several times to do things that she conceded were within the scope of her duties. One of Petitioner's duties was to track the department's inventory, order supplies as needed, check the supplies against the invoices as they arrived, and unpack the supplies and restock the department's shelves. If the supplies were not removed from their shipping containers and stocked on the shelves, it was difficult for the instructors and students to find items or know when the department was running low on a given supply. Student cosmetologists at the College were frequently required to use caustic chemicals, and it was critical that the supplies be correctly inventoried and shelved to avoid mistakes in application of these chemicals. Ms. McLean had to tell Petitioner repeatedly to unpack the supplies. Petitioner would tell Ms. McLean that she would take care of it, but later Ms. McLean would notice that the supplies were still in their boxes.7/ Ms. McLean testified that there were multiple occasions when paperwork could not be located due to Petitioner's lack of a filing system. Ms. McLean and Petitioner would have to rummage through stacks of paper to find the item they needed because Petitioner failed to file the department's paperwork in a coherent manner. Another of Petitioner's duties was to set up "product knowledge" classes conducted by vendors of hair care products used in the cosmetology program. In February 2007, Ms. Glenn asked Petitioner to set up a class with Shirley Detrieville, the Redken representative for the College. Over the next month, Ms. Glenn repeatedly asked Petitioner about her progress in setting up the class, and Petitioner consistently responded that Ms. Detrieville had not returned her calls. Finally, in March, Ms. Glenn happened to see Ms. Detrieville on the campus. Ms. Detrieville informed Ms. Glenn that all the paperwork for the class had been completed long ago, and she was just waiting for Petitioner to call and let her know when to come. Ms. Glenn's class never received the Redken training. The evidence established that Petitioner consistently failed to return phone calls made to the department. There was a core group of women, mostly retirees that constituted an important segment of the regular patrons at the department's lab. Keeping track of their appointments was important because the students needed practical experience in order to meet the requirements for licensure. It was also important to keep track of the training needs of each student, because a student working on hair coloring, for instance, needed to be matched with a customer requesting that service. Among Petitioner's duties was to make the appointments for the patrons, and to coordinate the appointments with the students. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn testified that they consistently received complaints that Petitioner did not return phone calls from patrons attempting to make appointments. Ms. McLean recalled an elderly woman named Ms. Grammith, who was a weekly customer at the lab. Ms. Grammith phoned Ms. McLean at home because she was unable to get Petitioner to return her calls for an appointment.8/ Ms. Glenn recounted an occasion when she received a phone call from Ms. Grammith, complaining that Petitioner was not returning her calls. Ms. Glenn walked into Petitioner's office and asked her to return Ms. Grammith's call and make her appointment. Petitioner assured Ms. Glenn that she would. Ms. Glenn then went to teach a class. When she returned to her office, Ms. Glenn had another message from Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn asked Petitioner about the situation, and Petitioner admitted that she had not yet returned the call. Still later on the same afternoon, Ms. Glenn received a third call from Ms. Grammith. Again, Ms. Glenn inquired of Petitioner, who again admitted that she had not phoned Ms. Grammith. The next morning was a Friday, and Ms. Glenn received another call from Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn walked into Petitioner's office and told her to call Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn knew Petitioner never made the call because Ms. Grammith called Ms. Glenn yet again on the following Monday. Another elderly regular customer, Ms. Caldwell, stopped Ms. Glenn in the hallway one day to ask "what in the world was going on here." Ms. Caldwell complained that Petitioner never got her appointment right, and always told her that she had come in on the wrong day or at the wrong time. On this day, Ms. Caldwell was left sitting in the hallway outside the lab for three and one-half hours because Petitioner failed to schedule her appointment correctly. On another occasion, Shirley Rehberg, an LCCC employee, emailed Ms. Glenn to inquire about making an appointment for a pedicure. Ms. Glenn responded that Petitioner handled appointments, and provided Ms. Rehberg with information as to Petitioner's office hours. On three different occasions, Ms. Rehberg informed Ms. Glenn that she had attempted to make appointments with Petitioner but had received no response. Ms. Glenn also recalled going to the College registrar's office on unrelated business and being asked by Debbie Osborne, an employee in that office, whether the cosmetology department had stopped taking appointments. Ms. Glenn told her that all she had to do was call Petitioner. Ms. Osborne replied that she had emailed Petitioner several times and never received a response. Ms. McLean concluded that Petitioner was much more interested in the occasional teaching aspect of her position than she was in the quotidian matters of filing, ordering and answering the phone that constituted the bulk of her job. Ms. McLean believed that Petitioner's eagerness to teach, even when her presence on the floor was not requested or needed, sometimes caused Petitioner to neglect her other duties. Petitioner admitted that she preferred teaching, but also testified that she was forced to teach students at least two days per week because Ms. McLean simply skipped work every Wednesday and Thursday. Petitioner stated that when she was on the floor of the lab, she could not hear the phone ringing back in the office. She believed that this might have accounted for some of the missed phone calls. Ms. McLean credibly denied Petitioner's unsupported allegation that she skipped work twice per week. Ms. McLean was in the classroom and lab with her students four days per week, as required by her schedule. Ms. McLean reasonably observed that she would not remain long in the College's employ if she were to skip work every Wednesday and Thursday. When classes were not in session, faculty members such as Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn were not required to come into the office, whereas the teaching assistant was required to come in and work a full day from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On these faculty off-days, it was especially important for Petitioner to be on the job because she constituted the sole point of contact between students and the cosmetology department. New classes in cosmetology start twice a year, and prospective students may drop by the campus at any time. If no one is present during normal working hours to answer questions or assist the student in applying, the College could lose a prospective student as well as suffer a diminished public image. The evidence established that Petitioner would take advantage of the lack of supervision on faculty off-days to go missing from her position, without submitting leave forms for approval by an administrator as required by College policy. May 4, 2007, was the College's graduation day. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn arrived at the cosmetology building at 3:00 p.m. to prepare for the cap and gown ceremony and noted that Petitioner was not there, though it was a regular work day for her. Petitioner was still absent at 4:30 p.m. when the two instructors left the building to go to the graduation ceremony. On May 15, 2007, a faculty off-day, Ms. Glenn came in at 11:00 a.m. to prepare for her class the next day. Petitioner asked Ms. Glenn to handle a student registration matter while Petitioner went out. Ms. Glenn agreed to do so. The students had yet to arrive by 2:00 p.m. when Ms. Glenn was ready to leave. Petitioner had still not returned to the office, forcing Ms. Glenn to ask Ms. West to register the students if they arrived. Ms. Glenn had no idea when or if Petitioner ever returned to work that day. Marcia Brinson was the custodian who cleaned the cosmetology building. During summer session at the College, Ms. Brinson worked from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. She would often come into the cosmetology building and find that Petitioner was not there. This was the case on May 15, 2007, when Ms. Brinson entered the building at 2:00 p.m. At around 2:30, an administrator named Glenn Rice came to the cosmetology building with two students whom he was attempting to enroll.9/ Ms. Brinson phoned Ms. McLean at home to inform her of the situation. Ms. McLean phoned the cosmetology office. Petitioner did not answer. At about 2:50 p.m., Ms. McLean called Petitioner at her cell phone number. Petitioner answered and told Ms. McLean that she was at her mother's house, but was about to return to the College. Ms. McLean could not say whether Petitioner ever actually returned to the College that day. At the hearing, Petitioner claimed that the only time she left the cosmetology department on May 15, 2007, was to go to the library at 2:15 p.m. and obtain materials for a class she was going to teach on May 17. This testimony cannot be credited, given that it conflicts with the credible testimony of Ms. McLean, Ms. Glenn and Ms. Brinson. Further belying Petitioner's claim is the fact that she later submitted a leave form claiming "personal leave" for two hours on May 15, 2007. She claimed the hours from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Aside from its inconsistency with Petitioner's testimony, this claim was inaccurate on two other counts. First, the evidence established that Petitioner was away from the office from at least 11:00 a.m. until some time after 3:00 p.m. Second, Petitioner's regular work day ended at 5:00 p.m., thus giving her no cause to claim leave for the half-hour between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. The College has a "wellness" program in which employees are allowed to take 30 minutes of leave, three days per week, in order to engage in some form of exercise. Petitioner considered wellness time to be the equivalent of personal leave, and would leave her job at the College early in order to keep an appointment at a hair-styling salon at which she worked part-time. Finally, Petitioner was unwilling or unable to comply with the College's parking decal system. At the time she was hired, Petitioner was issued a staff parking pass that entitled her to park her car in any unreserved space on he campus. As noted above, many of the cosmetology customers were elderly women. For their convenience, the College had five spaces reserved for customers directly in front of the cosmetology building. Customers were issued a 5 x 8 "Cosmetology Customer" card that they would leave on their dashboards. If all five of the reserved spaces were taken, the card allowed the customer to park in any space on the campus. On May 30, 2007, the College's supervisor of safety and security, Tony LaJoie, was patrolling the campus on his golf cart. Petitioner flagged him down, asking for help with a dead battery in her car. Mr. LaJoie stopped to help her, but also noticed that Petitioner's car was parked in a space reserved for customers and that Petitioner had a "Cosmetology Customer" card on her dashboard. When he asked her about it, Petitioner told Mr. LaJoie that she had lost her staff parking pass and therefore needed to use the customer pass. Mr. LaJoie told Petitioner that she could go to the maintenance building and get a new staff pass, or get a visitor's pass to use until she found the first pass. Petitioner told Mr. LaJoie that she could not afford the $10 replacement fee for the pass. Mr. LaJoie told her that the $10 replacement fee was cheaper than the $25 to $50 fines she would have to pay for illegally parking on campus. Petitioner promised Mr. LaJoie that she would go to maintenance and take care of the situation. On June 5, 2007, Mr. LaJoie found Petitioner's car again parked in a customer reserved space and with a customer card on the dashboard. Mr. LaJoie wrote Petitioner a parking ticket. Petitioner was well aware that the customer spaces were reserved at least in part because many of the department's customers were elderly and unable to walk more than a short distance. Petitioner nonetheless ignored College policy and parked her car in the reserved spaces. Petitioner never obtained a replacement parking pass.10/ Dean Hickman was the administrator who made the decision to recommend Petitioner's termination to the College's Vice-President, Charles Carroll, who in turn presented the recommended decision to LCCC President Charles W. Hall, who made the final decision on termination. She based her recommendation on the facts as set forth in Findings of Fact 19 through 48, supra. Petitioner's termination was due to her performance deficiencies. Dean Hickman considered Petitioner's pattern of conduct, including her repeated violation of parking policies and her practice of leaving her post without permission, to constitute insubordination. Ms. McLean, who provided input to Dean Hickman as to Petitioner's performance issues, testified that Petitioner's slack performance worked to the great detriment of a department with only two instructors attempting to deal with 20 or more students at different stages of their training. Petitioner's position was not filled for a year after her dismissal. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn worked extra hours and were able to perform Petitioner's duties, with the help of a student to answer the phones. The fact that the instructors were able to perform their own jobs and cover Petitioner's duties negates Petitioner's excuse that she was required to do more than one full-time employee could handle. Furthermore, Ms. McLean testified that, despite the added work load, Petitioner's departure improved the working atmosphere by eliminating the tension caused by Petitioner. Because Petitioner was still a probationary employee, the College was not required to show cause or provide specific reasons for her dismissal. Nevertheless, the evidence established that there were entirely adequate, performance-based reasons that fully justified the College's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. The evidence further established that Petitioner's dismissal was not related to the formal grievance Petitioner filed on June 5, 2007. However, because Petitioner has alleged that her termination was retaliatory, the facts surrounding her grievance are explored below. The grievance stemmed from an incident that occurred between Petitioner and Ms. Glenn on May 16, 2007, the first day of the summer term. A student named Russia Sebree approached Ms. Glenn with a problem. Ms. Sebree was not on Ms. Glenn's summer class roster because she had not completed the Tests of Adult Basic Education ("TABE"), a test of basic reading, math and language skills. Students were required to pass the TABE in their first semester before they would be allowed to register for their second semester. Ms. Glenn told Ms. Sebree that, because the initial registration period had passed, they would have to walk over to the Dean's office and have Dean Hickman register Ms. Sebree for the class. Ms. Glenn phoned Dean Hickman's secretary, Ms. West, to make an appointment. Ms. West told Ms. Glenn that Dean Hickman was out of the office, and that she would make a return call to Ms. Glenn as soon as the dean returned. While waiting for Ms. West's call, Ms. Sebree apparently drifted into Petitioner's office. She mentioned to Petitioner that she hadn't passed the TABE test, and Petitioner told her she could take care of the matter by making an appointment for Ms. Sebree to take the test. Ms. Glenn overheard the conversation and walked in to stop Petitioner from making the call. She told Petitioner that she had a call in to Dean Hickman, and that she and Ms. Sebree would have to meet with the dean to determine whether Ms. Sebree could register for Ms. Glenn's summer class or whether she would be required to complete the TABE and wait until the next semester. Ms. Glenn was angered by Petitioner's interference in this matter. Petitioner's actions were beyond the scope of a teaching assistant's duties, unless requested by an instructor.11/ She jumped into the situation without inquiring whether Ms. Sebree had talked to her instructor about her problem and without understanding the steps that Ms. Glenn had already taken on Ms. Sebree's behalf. Eventually, Ms. West returned the call and Ms. Glenn and Ms. Sebree met with Dean Hickman. After the meeting, Ms. Glenn requested a private meeting with Dean Hickman. She told the dean that she was very upset that Petitioner had taken it upon herself to take over the situation with Ms. Sebree, when Ms. Glenn was taking care of the matter and Petitioner had no reason to step in. Dean Hickman told Ms. Glenn that she would not tolerate a staff person going over an instructor's head in a matter involving a student. Dean Hickman asked Ms. Glenn to send Petitioner over to her office. Dean Hickman testified that she met with Petitioner for about 30 minutes, and that Petitioner left her office requesting a meeting with Ms. Glenn. Dean Hickman did not testify as to the details of her meeting with Petitioner. The dean knew that Petitioner was angry and cautioned her to conduct herself in a professional manner when speaking with Ms. Glenn. Petitioner testified that Dean Hickman "yelled" at her, "I will not have you undermine my instructor's authority." Petitioner professed not to know what Dean Hickman was talking about. The dean repeated what Ms. Glenn had said to her about the incident with Ms. Sebree. According to Petitioner, Ms. Glenn had told the dean "some lie," an "outlandish" tale in which "I went in telling Russia that she didn't have to do what Vicki said, or something like that." Petitioner told Dean Hickman her version of the incident, which was essentially that nothing happened. She was showing Ms. Sebree "some basic algebraic equations and stuff and there was no conflict or anything in the office." Petitioner asked for a meeting "so I can see what's going on." Petitioner returned to the cosmetology department. She was visibly upset. She asked for a departmental meeting with Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn that afternoon. Ms. McLean agreed to move up the weekly departmental meeting in order to take care of this matter. The meeting convened with Ms. McLean going over the usual day-to-day matters involving the program. Once the regular business was completed, Ms. McLean stated that she wanted Petitioner and Ms. Glenn to air out their problems. Petitioner asked Ms. Glenn why she wanted to tell lies about her. Ms. Glenn said, "What?" and Petitioner stated, "You're a liar." Ms. Glenn denied the accusation. Petitioner repeated, "You're nothing but a liar." In anger and frustration, Ms. Glenn stated, "Look here, sister, I am not a liar." Petitioner responded, "First, you're not my sister and, secondly, my name is Stephanie K. Taylor, address me with that, please."12/ Ms. McLean testified that both women were "pretty heated" and "pretty frustrated" with each other. She concluded the meeting shortly after this exchange. After the meeting, Petitioner and Ms. McLean spoke about Ms. Glenn's use of the word "sister," which Petitioner believed had racial connotations. Ms. McLean told Petitioner that she did not believe anything racial was intended.13/ Ms. Glenn had never been called a liar, and in her frustration she blurted out "sister" in the same way another angry person might say, "Look here, lady." Petitioner seemed satisfied and the matter was dropped for the remainder of the day. Dean Hickman testified that Petitioner brought some paperwork to her office that afternoon after the departmental meeting. Petitioner told her that she felt better about the situation, that they had aired their differences and everything now seemed fine. The dean considered the matter resolved. By the next morning, May 17, 2007, Petitioner had changed her mind about the comment. She sent an email to each member of the College's board of trustees, President Hall, Dean Hickman, and various other College employees that stated as follows: Hello. I am Stephanie K. Taylor, Teaching Assistant for Cosmetology. I am writing because of an incident that took place on yesterday, May 16, 2007. Nancy Carol McLean (Coordinator/Instructor), Vicki Glenn (Instructor) and I met for a meeting to discuss concerns in our department approximately 11:35 am. During our discussion, Vicki Glenn made a racial comment to me. I disagreed with her concerning a statement she made. Her reply to me was: "No, 'Sister', I did not!" I was very offended by her remark and I replied, "My name is Stephanie Kay Taylor." Following the meeting, I spoke with Ms. McLean and I decided to write this incident statement. If I allow an instructor to call me something other than my name, these incidents will continue. Ms. McLean had repeatedly cautioned Petitioner to respect the College's chain of command. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Ms. McLean was supposed to be Petitioner's first resort insofar as work-related complaints. Petitioner was in the habit of going straight to Dean Hickman with complaints before discussing them with Ms. McLean. However, in this instance, Petitioner did show Ms. McLean the text of her statement before she distributed it. Ms. McLean advised Petitioner to take the matter straight to Dean Hickman and discuss it with her before distributing the statement. Petitioner did not take Ms. McLean's advice. Though Petitioner emailed the statement to Dean Hickman, the dean did not actually see the statement until it had been distributed to several other people. No evidence was presented that Petitioner suffered any adverse consequences from distributing her written statement outside the College's chain of command. To the contrary, Petitioner testified that Ms. McLean advised her that if she felt strongly about the matter, she should file a formal grievance pursuant to the LCCC Policy and Procedure 6Hx12:6- 10.14/ Ms. McLean provided Petitioner with the forms she needed to file a written grievance. Petitioner also sought and received the advice of a human relations specialist at the College as to how to file a formal grievance. Both Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn convincingly testified that they had no ill feeling toward Petitioner for filing a grievance. Ms. McLean stated that the grievance had no impact on her at all. Ms. Glenn was not disturbed by the grievance because she had done nothing wrong and believed the process would vindicate her. Petitioner filed her formal written grievance on June 5, 2007. Vice president Marilyn Hamm began the investigation in the absence of Human Resources Director Gary Boettcher, who picked up the investigation upon his return to the campus. Dean Hickman also participated in the investigation of Petitioner's grievance. They interviewed the witnesses to the incident. They also interviewed 11 cosmetology students and asked them whether they had ever heard Ms. Glenn make any "derogatory or racial slurs or comments" relative to Petitioner. None of the students had heard Ms. Glenn make any remarks fitting the description in the query.15/ One student told the investigators that he had heard Petitioner speak disparagingly of Ms. Glenn, but not vice versa. On June 19, 2007, Mr. Boettcher issued a memorandum to Petitioner that stated as follows: You filed a grievance alleging that Ms. Vickie Glenn made a racial comment to you by calling you "sister." You further stated that you want the same respect that you have given to others and that you be referred to by your name, Stephanie K. Taylor. I was not available when you filed the grievance therefore it was referred to Vice President Hamm who began the investigation and upon my return it was referred to me. Ms. Hamm interviewed yourself, and Carol McLean. Ms. Hamm and I then interviewed Ms. Glenn. Subsequently, Ms. Hickman, the Dean of your department, and I interviewed a random sampling of students in the cosmetology program. The incident you described, when you were referred to as "sister" was discussed with both Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn, who were in the meeting when the comment was made. They both acknowledged that you were in fact referred to as sister. Neither of them viewed it as a racial comment but a term that was used in the heat of the discussion in which you and Ms. Glenn were very much at odds on a subject. The students were interviewed and asked if you had discussed or made mention of an evaluation that you received and also whether that had ever heard Ms. Glenn talk derogatorily or made any racial comments relative to you. Some of the students heard of talk of your evaluation but none of them heard it first hand from you. None of the students ever heard Ms. Glenn refer to you in any racial or disparaging way. In view of the investigation it is concluded that you were called "sister" but not in a negative or racial inference and that Ms. Glenn has not referred to you in a derogatory or racial manner. This has been discussed with Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn in that they were asked to refer to you strictly by your name and in a professional manner. I trust this will be satisfactory to you and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Petitioner's employment with the College was terminated on June 28, 2007, nine days after Mr. Boettcher's memorandum. No evidence was presented to establish a causal connection between these two events, aside from their temporal proximity. As noted extensively above, the College had more than ample justification to terminate Petitioner's employment before the conclusion of her six-month probationary period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was terminated from her position with the College due to poor job performance and conduct amounting to insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the College did not retaliate against Petitioner for the filing of a grievance alleging that Ms. Glenn had made a racially discriminatory remark towards Petitioner. Rather, the greater weight of the evidence established that College personnel assisted Petitioner in filing her grievance and that the College conscientiously investigated the grievance. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the College has not discriminated against Petitioner based on her race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Lake City Community College did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 June, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Miami-Dade County School District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged by Florida law with the operation, control, management, and supervision of all public schools within the Dade County School District. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Maurice Cherry, was employed by Petitioner as a security monitor at Thomas Jefferson Middle School (TJMS). Sergeant Buck is a seventeen-year veteran police officer employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department. During the month of November 1996, Officer Buck was deployed in an undercover assignment related to activities and complaints at several adult bookstores. These complaints alleged lewd and lascivious acts were occurring on the premises of several named bookstores. While in his undercover capacity at or near one of the adult bookstores, Officer Buck met the Respondent. During this initial conversation with the Respondent, Officer Buck noted that the Respondent wore what appeared to be a school security jacket. Because Respondent made several suggestive sexual comments and verbal advances, Officer Buck determined to investigate the Respondent further as he was concerned that Respondent might be pursuing improper sexual conduct on school property with minors. In furtherance of his investigation, Officer Buck discovered that Respondent did, in fact, provide security monitor services at TJMS. The officer went to the school property and was attempting to verify that the security monitor employed at TJMS was the individual he had previously encountered at the adult bookstore site. While not expecting to run into Respondent, Officer Buck did make contact with the suspect in the school hallway. On this occasion Respondent ushered the police officer into a locked, second-story classroom (for which Respondent had the key) and engaged in conversation of a sexual nature. During the course of this brief encounter, Respondent grabbed Officer Buck in the groin area, and, as the police sergeant interpreted it, attempted to touch the officer's penis. Officer Buck resisted the sexual advance and, after making an excuse to Respondent, left the school premises. At no time during this episode did Respondent say or indicate to Officer Buck that students or minors were involved in any sexual activities with the Respondent. After several months of reassignment on another police project, Officer Buck returned to TJMS in April 1997 to resume his investigation of the Respondent. Again, his primary focus was to assure that the security monitor was not engaged in any sexual activities with minors. In this connection, Officer Buck approached the Respondent and engaged in conversation to determine if the Respondent would divulge any information related to minors. Respondent did not. It did not appear that Respondent was interested in minors. On the other hand, Respondent again attempted to make sexual contact with Officer Buck. Although during school hours and with students present on campus, Respondent ushered the undercover officer into a locked room, asked him to show him his penis, grabbed Officer Buck in the groin area as if to attempt to remove his penis from his pants, and exposed his own penis to Officer Buck. All of this occurred within a matter of moments. Since Officer Buck had sounded a verbal signal to officers who were waiting outside, police backups were making their way to the classroom where the officer and Respondent were located. Within a short time, Respondent was in police custody and was charged with criminal offenses stemming from the lewd behavior. This event made the evening television news. It was also covered by at least one prominent Miami-area newspaper. As a result of the publicity generated by Respondent's arrest, the principal at TJMS did not want the security monitor back at her school. Parents expressed concerns regarding Respondent and his presence at the school. The allegations related to Respondent's arrest resulted in a disturbance at the school such that to permit him to return would have caused additional turmoil and disruption. Such turmoil would result in the school system being brought into further disgrace and disrespect because of the unacceptable conduct Respondent exhibited. Respondent's effectiveness as a school security monitor has been greatly diminished as a result of his conduct and the resulting criminal charges. That the case was not criminally prosecuted does not mitigate the damage done to Respondent's effectiveness because, while he was not prosecuted, the lewd acts were committed on school property during the school day.
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 dismissing Respondent from his employment with the school district. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos E. Mustelier, Jr., Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Polk County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Respondent, David McCall.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract as a classroom teacher at Lake Region High School, a unit of the Polk County Public School System. On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, a student entered the Respondent’s classroom approximately ten minutes after class had commenced. The student’s tardiness was apparently related to her participation as a donor in a blood drive occurring at the school on that date. At the time the student entered the classroom, the Respondent was engaged in administering a standard quiz, and the time allotted for the quiz was about to end. The Respondent directed the student to remain outside the classroom and take the quiz. The student advised the Respondent that she donated blood and, feeling dizzy, had hit her foot on a doorway. She told the Respondent that she injured her toe and requested that she be allowed to go to the school clinic. The Petitioner presented a statement allegedly written by the student asserting that her toe was bleeding at the time the Respondent observed the toe. The student did not testify, and the written statement is insufficient to establish that the toe was bleeding at the time she entered the classroom. The Respondent testified that he observed the toe and saw perhaps a minor abrasion but saw no evidence of serious injury. The Respondent declined to refer the student to the clinic and again instructed the student to remain outside the classroom and complete the quiz. The student remained outside the classroom and presumably began taking the quiz. Shortly thereafter, another teacher walking in the hallway observed the student sitting outside the Respondent’s classroom with a paper towel under her foot. The teacher observed the student shaking and blood on the towel and asked the student about the situation. The student advised the teacher of the circumstances, stating that she felt like she was going to “pass out.” The teacher, with the assistance of a third teacher, obtained a wheelchair, retrieved the student’s belongings from the Respondent’s classroom, and advised the Respondent that the student was being taken to the clinic. After the student was transported to the clinic, her mother was called. The mother came to the school and retrieved her daughter, observing that the toe was bloody and swollen. The mother subsequently took her daughter to a doctor and testified that the student was referred for x-rays of the injured toe. Later on October 3, 2007, the student’s mother contacted the school principal, Joel McGuire, to inquire as to the manner in which the matter had been handled by the Respondent. The principal advised the mother he would follow up on her inquiry. On Thursday morning, October 4, 2007, Principal McGuire sent an email to the Respondent and asked him to come to Principal McGuire’s office during a planning period or after 2:30 p.m. “to confirm some information” about the student. The Respondent did not respond to the email and did not comply with Principal McGuire’s request to meet at that time. After receiving no response from the Respondent, Principal McGuire left a copy of the email in the Respondent’s mailbox at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, 2007, with a handwritten note asking the Respondent to come to the principal’s office on the following Friday morning “before school.” The Respondent did not respond to the note left in the mailbox and did not appear at the principal’s office prior to the start of Friday classes. Based on the lack of response, Principal McGuire sent another email to the Respondent on Friday, October 5, 2007, and asked him to come to the principal’s office at 6:30 a.m. on Monday. The email advised that the meeting was “to discuss the situation which occurred on Wednesday, October 3rd” so that the principal could respond to the mother’s inquiry. Although the Respondent was routinely present on the school campus by 6:30 a.m. on school days, the Respondent replied to the principal and declined to meet at that time, stating that the “proposed meeting time is not within my contracted hours.” The principal thereafter emailed the Respondent and requested that he come to the principal’s office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, October 8, 2007. The email stated as follows: Mother is really needing information concerning the situation which took place in your class. I do need to meet with you and provide a response to her. I believe 10:30 a.m. is during your planning period. Thanks for coming by my office. The principal received no response to this email and the October 8, 2007, meeting did not occur. The principal thereafter sent a letter to the Respondent dated October 12, 2007, which stated as follows: I am requesting a meeting with you Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. I will provide a substitute in your classroom in order for you to meet with me. The meeting will be very brief. I need some information about [student], a student you had in 2nd period geometry, in order to inform her mother. This is the sixth request for a meeting. Failure to comply with my request will be deemed insubordination and will require additional actions. The Respondent attended the meeting, but refused to provide any information, stating, “I am not going to respond to you.” By letter dated October 22, 2007, the Respondent received a written reprimand for his “refusal to assist in the investigation of an incident involving [student] on October 3, 2007." The letter advised that the first step of progressive discipline, a verbal warning, was being omitted because of the “seriousness of your actions and the possible consequences.” In relevant part, the letter provided as follows: Attached to this letter is my memorandum setting forth the events and facts as I have best been able to determine. As indicated, you have been uncooperative in our effort to investigate the facts surrounding this incident. Most significantly, when we were finally able to meet in my office on October 15, 2007, you refused to discuss the circumstances surrounding [student’s] situation and you stated specifically, “I am not going to respond to you.” This situation involved an injured student and our school’s response to that incident. Your refusal to assist or participate in the investigation is contrary to your obligation as a teacher to respond suitably to issues of a student’s health and welfare, is adverse to the school’s obligation to address concerns of the parents, and is completely contrary to your obligations as an employee of the Polk County School Board. Please understand that this letter of reprimand is addressed solely to your refusal to participate, cooperate or assist in the investigation of this incident. Should the outcome of the investigation indicate that your conduct in dealing with the student was inappropriate, I am reserving the right to request further disciplinary action by the Superintendent. Please note that a suspension without pay is the next step in progressive discipline as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In conclusion, the letter directed the Respondent to prepare a signed “full written report” of the incident, including “your recollections and observation of the events and your justification for your actions you took in response to this incident.” The letter directed the Respondent to deliver the report within five days of the Respondent’s receipt of the letter and, further, stated that “refusal to take such action and to cooperate in the investigation may have serious consequences regarding your employment.” The memorandum attached to the letter provided a chronology of events identifying all participants and specifically referencing the principal’s multiple attempts to obtain information from the Respondent. The Respondent failed to provide the written statement as required by the October 22, 2007, letter of reprimand and failed to otherwise provide information to the Petitioner. By letter dated November 15, 2007, from Principal McGuire to Superintendent Dr. Gail McKinzie, the principal requested that the superintendent issue a five-day suspension without pay to the Respondent for “gross insubordination.” The letter misidentified the date of the incident as October 4, 2007. By letter dated November 29, 2007, the superintendent suspended the Respondent without pay for five days. The letter, repeating the misidentification of the date of the incident, stated in relevant part as follows: On October 4, 2007, you denied a student’s request to go to the school clinic. It was determined that the student had a broken toe. Your administrator, Joel McGuire, has made six verbal requests and two written requests for information on this incident. The last request was made on October 22, 2007, in a formal letter of reprimand which stated “your refusal to take such action and to cooperate in this investigation may have serious consequence for your employment. This recommendation for a five day suspension without pay is provided for in Article IV section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and is a result of your continued insubordination and refusal to follow the requests of your immediate supervisor. Please be advised that future incidents of this nature may result in additional disciplinary action. The letter of suspension advised the Respondent that the suspension would be in effect from December 5 through 7, 10, and 11, 2007, and that he should report back to work on December 12, 2007. The Respondent served the suspension without pay. In a letter dated December 13, 2007 (“Subject: October 4, 2007, incident”), from Principal McGuire, the Respondent was advised as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests from you for your explanation of the events in which you participated on October 4, 2007, involving a student requiring medical attention. This is my final request to you for a written explanation of those events. You are herby directed to report to my office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, December 17, 2007, and you are instructed to have with you at that time a written explanation of the events in question. You shall also be prepared to answer any questions regarding what occurred on that day and the actions you took. You should not have any classes at that time, but I will provide coverage for you if for any reason that is required. Please understand that this is a very serious matter, and you have previously received a five day disciplinary suspension. The next step in progressive discipline is termination, and insubordination can be just cause for termination. I hope that you will conduct yourself appropriately, if you wish to remain an employee of the Polk County School Board. On December 17, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time, but asserted that he had not been involved in any incident on October 4, 2007, and declined to otherwise provide any information. Although the date of the incident, October 3, 2007, had been misidentified as October 4, 2007, in the referenced series of letters, there is no evidence that the Respondent was unaware of the specific event about which the information was being sought. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was fully aware of the matter being reviewed by Principal McGuire. In response to the December 17, 2007, meeting, Principal McGuire issued a letter dated December 18, 2007 (“Subject: October 3, 2007, incident”), essentially identical in most respects to the December 13, 2007, letter and correcting the referenced date. The letter scheduled another meeting for 10:30 a.m. on December 19, 2007. On December 19, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time and declined to answer any questions, stating that he was invoking his rights under the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States of America. By letter to Superintendent McKinzie dated January 2, 2008, Principal McGuire recommended termination of the Respondent’s employment. Principal McGuire restated the chronology of the October 3, 2007, incident and wrote as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of the circumstances in order to include them in our investigation of the events. He refused to comply with each of those requests. He received a formal letter of reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay for his gross insubordination. Since his suspension, I have made written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of those events, and he has blatantly refused to do so. By letter also dated January 2, 2008, Superintendent McKinzie notified the Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and that she would recommend to the full school board that his employment be terminated. The letter set forth the grounds for the termination as follows: Since the incident on October 3, 2007, you have refused repeated verbal and written requests by the school administration to provide an explanation of the events which occurred on that date or to otherwise participate in the investigation of those events. As a result of your refusal to provide an explanation or participate in the investigation, you have received a formal written reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay. Since your suspension, you have again refused specific requests by your principal to provide an explanation of these events. Based on these facts, it is my opinion that you have intentionally violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education in Florida by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety (Rule 6B-1.006 FAC). Further you have engaged in ongoing, gross insubordination by repeatedly refusing to take certain actions which are a necessary and essential function of your position as a School Board employee. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. Therefore, it is my conclusion that "just cause" exists for your termination as an employee of the Polk County School Board. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the termination, and the Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the instant hearing, the Respondent made no effort to provide any information to the Petitioner regarding the events of October 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of David McCall. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 David McCall 3036 Spirit Lake Drive Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Dr. Gail McKinzie, Superintendent Polk County School Board Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of the School Board, is guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.37, and if so, whether termination of her employment is an appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating employees in the school district. Respondent is a non-instructional (support) employee at Explorer K-8 School (Explorer) in Spring Hill. She began working at Explorer as a Custodian I in school year 2014-2015 and was assigned the night shift, 3:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Before coming to Explorer, Respondent was a custodian at Hernando High School in Brooksville, but left to fill a vacancy at Explorer, which was closer to her home. She was hired at the recommendation of Homer Lawson, an African American male and head custodian at Explorer. Barbara Kidder is principal at Explorer and has ultimate supervisory responsibility for all employees at the school, including the custodial staff. Lillian DiTucci is the assistant principal and also has supervisory duties over the custodial staff. Custodians at Explorer are assigned to either the day or night shift. Lawson, as head custodian, is responsible for supervising all custodians, regardless of the shift assignment. Eric Harris is the night custodian supervisor and is next in the chain of command below Lawson. Although Lawson works the day shift, he is present for approximately one hour of the night shift and meets with Harris prior to the start of that shift to go over various issues, including performance of custodial staff. Lawson is the first person to arrive at Explorer the next morning and conducts walk-throughs to ensure the areas have been cleaned by the night shift. As head custodian, Lawson is also in charge of custodial supplies at Explorer. If a custodian is out of supplies, Lawson requires the custodian to write on the board the supplies he or she needs for the next day and then he processes the request. The supplies usage is documented in a log book, with notation of the custodian's name and the date the supplies were issued. If the documentation shows one custodian is going through more supplies than the others, Lawson inquires of the custodian. Because of strict budgetary concerns, Lawson is vigilant in tracking the use of supplies. He does not deny necessary supplies, but he will give direction to be more responsible. The School Board has adopted Policy 6.37, which establishes standards for the separation, discipline, and discharge of non-instructional employees, including Respondent. Paragraph (5)(d) recognizes three categories of offenses and a guide for recommended penalties. Relevant to this proceeding are the offenses and recommended penalties for Groups II and III. The penalty for Group II offenses ranges from a written reprimand for the first offense to discharge for a third offense. Group III offenses are the most serious and carry a recommended penalty of "up to discharge" for the first violation. The School Board has charged Respondent with violating two Group II offenses, referred to as items in the policy: Item 7 - Creating or contributing to unsafe, unsanitary or poor housekeeping conditions; and Item 13 - Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. Respondent is also charged with violating five Group III offenses: Item 1 - Insubordination; Item 4 - Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned task; Item 12 - Violation of a posted or otherwise known Board or departmental rule, procedure, order, regulation of any State or County statute or ordinance which is related to the employee's employment; Item 14 - Improper racial or sexual comments, harassment or acts; and Item 23 - Refusal to work overtime or hours as assigned. The Inappropriate Conduct Which Led to the Charges From the very beginning of her employment with Explorer, Respondent exhibited numerous performance issues, including the complete failure to perform assigned tasks, which resulted in a high volume of complaints from teachers and staff throughout the fall term and required multiple meetings with, and direction from, supervisors. On September 4, 2014, or a few days after she began working at the school, Harris met with Respondent regarding her cell phone usage during work hours. Harris witnessed and received complaints from other school employees that Respondent was on her cell phone "a lot," which resulted in less productivity and caused a distraction because she often kept her phone on speakerphone. Respondent responded that she would shut it off and use it only for emergencies. Respondent was assigned to clean the classroom of Michele Hann, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher at Explorer. On Thursday, September 18, 2014, Hann emailed Lawson and stated that her classroom had not been properly cleaned in a manner that was acceptable for ESE students, some of whom had medical needs requiring a very clean environment. She also noted that food from the day before was still on the floor, the paper towels by the sink had not been replaced since the previous Friday, and her Terminator bottle (containing a disinfectant) was empty. Harris was given a copy of Hann's email and discussed these complaints with Respondent. Among other responsibilities, Respondent was required to restock paper towels in the classrooms that she cleaned. On September 19, Lori Linauer, a teacher at Explorer, emailed Lawson that the bathroom in her classroom had been out of paper towels since the day before. Based on these complaints, Respondent was assigned a new area that required less responsibility, but the complaints regarding her performance deficiencies continued. One of her new assignments was cleaning the school's locker rooms. A few days later, Harris received a complaint that the locker rooms were not being cleaned. It takes "at least a half hour [to clean] each locker room to do a good job," and the night shift ends at 11:30 p.m. Harris observed that on September 22 and 23, Respondent did not begin cleaning the locker rooms until around 10:45 p.m. and 11:10 p.m., respectively. These observations enabled Harris to confirm that Respondent was doing her work "quick at the end of the night," without properly cleaning the rooms. Harris discussed this concern with Respondent and even assisted her with cleaning the locker rooms on several occasions. Custodians are instructed to place their carts in the custodial closet at the end of their shifts. On September 25, Harris met with Respondent after she continued to leave her cart and radio in the recreation hall at the end of her shift. Respondent gave no credible reason why she ignored this requirement. On September 29, Harris received another complaint that the locker rooms were not properly cleaned. When he confronted Respondent about this complaint, she explained that other rooms were messy and she had "meetings," implying that she had insufficient time to finish her work. Because Respondent had still not secured her assigned badge that would allow her access to the locker rooms (once they were electronically locked in the evening), Harris had to unlock the boys' locker room at 11:30 p.m. and then retrieve her cleaning materials so that she could finish the job. On October 21, Harris checked the boys' gang bathroom (a multi-use bathroom with six or more stalls) and found the toilet bases filthy and not wiped down. Harris met with Respondent to discuss this concern. The next day he noticed that Respondent failed to properly clean the toilets and mirrors in the girls' gang bathroom. Harris once again met with Respondent to discuss these concerns. Respondent told Harris that she needed a brush with a stick on it to make the job easier. Harris told her that she should clean the toilets the way everyone else did, by bending down and wiping them clean. On October 24, Respondent telephoned the principal's secretary at 4:15 p.m. and said she would be late because she had to pick up her employee's badge. However, Respondent did not pick up her badge that day. On October 28, Joanne Yarin, a Media Specialist at the school, informed Lawson by email that the women's restroom in the media center ran out of paper towels the afternoon before. Yarin had asked Respondent to refill the paper towels, but Respondent told her she wasn't sure if there were any more in the supply room. When the paper towels were not restocked by the following morning, Yarin contacted another custodian who promptly complied with her request. On October 29, Karen Federico, a music teacher at Explorer, complained to Lawson by email that Respondent failed to vacuum her classroom or take out the trash the night before. She also complained that the concession area women's bathroom had no paper towels. On November 3, Tammy Ashurst, a behavior specialist at the school, emailed Lawson regarding her concerns about Respondent's performance. A copy of the email was forwarded to Kidder and Harris. Ashurst pointed out that Respondent's failure to sweep or vacuum the floors was a recurring problem. When she entered her classroom that morning, Ashurst found a large section of the floor dirty and sticky and she had to ask another custodian to clean it. Ashurst asked Lawson to speak with Respondent regarding this issue. On November 5, Respondent telephoned the principal's secretary to say if she was not at work by 5:00 p.m. that day she was not coming in. She did not show up for work. Whether Respondent turned in a leave form for that day is not of record. Beside the performance issues, Respondent did not interact well with other staff at Explorer. On November 7, she was involved in a verbal altercation with another custodian, Haley Carson, whose car (with the Carson baby inside) was nearly struck by Respondent's car the prior evening when Respondent sped out of the parking lot at the end of their shifts. Respondent also had a verbal altercation with another co-worker in the parking lot after parking at an angle and into the adjacent parking space used by the co-worker. Respondent told the co-worker that she (Respondent) always parked like that and to move her car if she didn't like it. On November 7, Harris received a complaint from another school employee, Mr. Baroudi, whose position is unknown, that the garbage in his room had not been emptied on two occasions and food sat in the trash can for days. On November 18, Juliet Figueroa, another night shift custodian who had just started work the day before, was given the rundown on her job (a "411") by Respondent. During the conversation Respondent asked Figueroa if "you know the manager Homer [Lawson]? I don't call him that I call him nigger." During the same conversation, Respondent referred to a former co-worker, Mundreanu, who is Romanian, as a "communist." She also asked Figueroa if she was a Puerto Rican, since Respondent thought she looked like a Mexican. Figueroa was "taken aback" by these comments and reported the incident to Kidder. At hearing, Respondent claimed that Figueroa misunderstood her and that she actually used the word "negro," which means black in Spanish, and not the word "nigger." However, Figueroa understands Spanish and knows the difference between "nigger" and "negro." Respondent's assertion that she did not use this language has not been accepted. On or about November 19, during his morning walk- through, Lawson observed feces in the stalls and soap scum on the walls of the girls' gang bathroom near the school cafeteria that should have been cleaned by Respondent. Lawson spoke with Harris and told him to direct Respondent to take care of it. Harris directed Respondent to clean the area, but she failed to comply with his instructions. Lawson then informed DiTucci. On November 20, DiTucci met with Respondent to discuss these latest performance deficiencies. Respondent refused to attend the meeting unless Lawson was not present, claiming she did not consider him to be her supervisor and he had "disrespected" her at work. At the meeting, Respondent argued the substance was chocolate and not feces, but the areas should have been cleaned regardless of the substance. By then, DiTucci had checked it out and confirmed Lawson's initial findings. Respondent also contended that she was not given sufficient supplies to finish her work, even though she sometimes used three times the amount of supplies as other custodians. Finally, she claimed that Lawson had accused her of stealing supplies but there is no credible evidence to support this assertion. The meeting ended with Respondent threatening to hire an attorney to respond to the charge that she was stealing supplies. On November 21, Harris documented that Maggie, another school custodian, witnessed Respondent's cart not moving for more than an hour earlier in the day. Each room typically takes 15 to 20 minutes to clean, and the cart is parked outside the room for easy access. Harris testified that this may have explained why Respondent's areas were not being properly cleaned. The same day, without seeking permission, Respondent told Harris she was leaving early, saying she "forgot to punch out for lunch goodnight." Custodians are required to punch out for "lunch" from 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m., a paid break. There is no option available to employees to work through lunch period and leave work earlier at the end of the shift. As of November 25, Respondent had still not cleaned the feces off the girls' bathroom wall. As a result, Kidder asked Harris to again direct Respondent to clean the girls' bathroom. She also asked Harris to remind Respondent to turn in a leave form for November 21, and to explain that she must punch in and out for lunch. Respondent finally complied with the directive to clean the girls' bathroom wall after DiTucci and Harris accompanied her to the bathroom, showed her the feces, and directed her to clean the area. On December 1, Stacy Tarbox, a paraprofessional at the school, emailed Lawson and Harris regarding Respondent's failure to clean the girl's locker room. Tarbox noted that it was dirty, the lockers had a thick layer of dust on top, the walls had not been cleaned, and the floors had not been pressure washed for some time. This was the same locker room Harris had previously talked to Respondent about in September. On December 2, Figueroa filed a bullying and harassment complaint against Respondent based on the November 18 incident in which Respondent made disparaging remarks about Lawson and Mundreanu. The essence of the complaint was that these comments created a hostile working environment. That afternoon, Kidder conducted a conference with DiTucci, Lawson, Respondent, and her union representative to discuss the bullying complaint and allegations that Respondent's conduct constituted a violation of three Group III offenses (items 7, 14, and 23) and one Group II offense (item 7). In response to these charges, Respondent initially said she could not remember using any racial terms when speaking with Figueroa but later labeled Figueroa as a liar and threatened to sue her. She claimed that she did not know what a "commie" meant and again called Figueroa a liar. She also said she never saw feces on the bathroom wall. If that was the case, she should have asked Harris where it was rather than doing nothing. In response to the charge that she refused to meet with her supervisor, Lawson, she claimed that he had accused her of stealing supplies, disrespected her, and hindered her in performing her work. Finally, she contended that before she left work on November 21 (without punching out for lunch), she told Harris that she was not feeling well. At the conclusion of the meeting, Kidder twice asked Respondent if she had any further response to the allegations and what it would take to change things. Respondent refused to respond. Respondent also declined to say if she intended to return to work at her assigned time and perform her duties. Kidder ultimately determined on December 18 that the bullying and harassment complaint was unfounded since it was an isolated incident, but concluded that Respondent's use of the offensive language was a violation of item 14 in Group III, which prohibits the use of improper racial comments. Beside the performance issues, Respondent's behavior at school offended other custodians. According to one co- worker, Respondent made the work environment feel "hostile" and "tense." There was testimony that co-workers had confrontations with Respondent about her work ethic and that Respondent gave a minimal effort to complete tasks. Also, there were nights when co-workers had to help her complete her assignments. Finally, the record shows that Respondent was always complaining about work and how she did not like her job. In short, there was a "bad atmosphere" at school among the custodians. Given the myriad of performance deficiencies, Lawson recommended to Kidder that Respondent be terminated, as her performance had steadily gone "downhill." Harris agreed with this assessment and pointed out that when compared with other custodians, Respondent's job performance was "poor to fair." Notably, the number of complaints about Respondent far exceeded those received for any other custodian. Kidder decided to make a recommendation at the school level to terminate Respondent. Her recommendation was based on Respondent's gross insubordination, a failure to perform assigned tasks, and violations of policy 6.37. This recommendation was supported by the fact that there were numerous emails and documents from teachers and staff outlining Respondent's issues as well as a series of meetings to address the concerns, none of which resulted in an improvement in Respondent's performance. In accordance with school protocol, a pre- determination meeting was held by Kidder on December 10, 2014, for the purpose of allowing Respondent to respond to not only the charges discussed at the December 2 meeting, but all offenses that had occurred since September. Respondent attended the meeting with a union representative. During the meeting, she refused to take responsibility for her actions and offered only excuses. She was argumentative with School staff and her union representative. Based on her lack of remorse and caustic attitude towards supervisors and co-workers, Kidder determined that termination was the appropriate action. On January 7, 2015, the Superintendent recommended that Respondent should be terminated, and pending final action by the School Board, she should be suspended, with pay. After Respondent filed a letter appealing this proposed action, the Superintendent recommended that the School Board suspend Respondent, without pay and benefits, pending an administrative appeal to DOAH. The recommendation was accepted by the School Board and the matter was referred to DOAH. At hearing, Respondent failed to present any credible evidence to rebut the charges or the evidence presented. She simply offered excuses like Lawson was difficult to work with, she was assigned a difficult area to clean due to high use, her co-workers did not help her clean, and she did not get sufficient supplies. While a former custodian testified that she also had problems getting sufficient supplies from Harris, neither spoke directly with Lawson to remedy this situation. Moreover, the evidence shows that Respondent used far more supplies than necessary and far more than other custodians.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Hernando County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment for violating the following offenses in School Board Policy 6.37: items 7 and 13 in Group II and items 1, 4, 12, 14, and 23 in Group III. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to suspend Respondent, George Young (Respondent), as alleged in the letter of the superintendent of schools dated June 9, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Indian River County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, George Young, was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach at Sebastian River High School and served as head baseball coach for the varsity team. For purposes of this case, all acts or omissions complained of were in connection with Respondent’s responsibilities as a baseball coach. By way of background, the allegations of this case evolved from an underlying incident that must be disclosed in order to put the proper perspective on Respondent’s role and responsibility in connection with the allegations. During March of 2008, Respondent scheduled his team to participate in a baseball tournament held in Broward County, Florida. The tournament location and schedule made it convenient for the team to remain near the site for one night of the tournament. This was not the first over-night venture for Respondent and the teams he coached. Prior to tournaments it was Respondent’s policy to instruct the team that they were representatives of the school. Respondent encouraged the students to refrain from horseplay, roughhousing, or misbehavior that could discredit them or the school. In short, the team members were to conduct themselves as gentlemen. Nevertheless, some of the students did engage in poor conduct. More specifically, several of the players began to wrestle in one of the hotel rooms. Some unspecified number of the players turned on their teammate, H.C. Without Respondent’s knowledge or consent, the players wrestled H.C. (the victim) to a bed, pulled down his pants, and placed a plastic soda bottle at or near his rectum. It is unknown whether the bottle actually penetrated the victim, but the fact that an assault was perpetrated by the student players is certain. After the assault, the victim escaped the room and fled to another hotel room. Several team players observed the victim to be quite upset. Moreover, at least one player believed that the student was so upset he was crying. Word spread among some of the players that something bad had happened to the victim. The details of the assault were not general knowledge. At least two adults who accompanied the team on the trip were also made aware that something untoward had occurred to the victim. At least one of the parents told Respondent that night that something had occurred. No specifics of the incident were disclosed to Respondent. He knew, however, that wrestling had occurred and that someone was upset. Respondent made no effort to personally discover what had happened to the victim that night. Presumably, he chalked it up as adolescent roughhousing. The next morning Respondent called a team meeting before the team left the hotel. It was his custom to speak to the team before checkout but on this morning he had the additional task of attempting to find out what had occurred the night before. Not surprisingly, no one disclosed the full details of the assault. From the hotel the team went on to a meal and played in the tournament. Respondent did not pursue further inquiry into the assault. Respondent did not question anyone individually regarding the events. Approximately one week later the victim's parents heard about the assault. A parent telephoned them to share information that something had occurred on the tournament trip. They were stunned and surprised to learn of the incident. They questioned their sons (both of whom were on the tournament trip) and decided something needed to be done to punish the students who committed the assault. To that end, they went to Respondent's home and asked him about the incident. Respondent was surprised to learn of the details of the assault and represented that something would be done to appropriately discipline the perpetrators of the deed. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that on the night of the parents' visit to Respondent's home, Respondent knew that the victim had been wrestled to the bed, had had his pants pulled down exposing his buttocks, and that a bottle may have been involved at or near the student's rectum. The bottle portion of the assault was stated as a possibility as the victim's parents at that time had not confirmed whether or not the bottle was used or merely threatened. Nevertheless, when Respondent reported the incident the next day to the athletic director, the possibility of a bottle being involved in the assault was omitted. Since Respondent did not disclose the full details of the assault, including the fact that a bottle may have been involved, to the athletic director, the punishment initially to be administered to the student perpetrators did not satisfy the victim's parents when they learned what would be imposed. Instead, they demanded that more harsh consequences befall the students who were involved in the assault. Their report of the incident conflicted with Respondent's story to the athletic director. It soon became clear that while the parents may have been willing to spare their son the embarrassment of the bottle portion of the story when they believed the penalty imposed against his attackers would be great, they were not going to let the perpetrators skate by on the penalty initially chosen. Thus Respondent's willingness to leave out the bottle portion of the assault became critical to the matter. In fact, the omission of the bottle portion of the incident became the key allegation against Respondent. The superintendent's letter setting forth the allegation against Respondent stated, in part: On April 8, 2008, you told Athletic Director, Michael Stutzke, that an incident occurred during an out of town baseball tournament that involved wrestling with someone's pants being pulled down. When you made that statement you knew that was not the complete story, because the night before, you met with a student's parents who told you their son's (the victim) pants were taken down and a bottle put near his rectum during the course of this incident. This is the same incident you described to Mr. Stutzke as mere wrestling and someone's pants pulled down. The credible weight of the evidence supports the finding that Respondent knew he had not given Mr. Stutzke the complete story of the incident. Although Respondent at that time may not have known for a fact that a bottle was used in the commission of the assault, he knew that the rumor of the bottle's use was in question. An investigation of the matter would have proved or disproved the bottle portion of the story. Respondent did not, however, reveal that portion of the allegations to school authorities. Although Respondent may have entertained the misguided notion that he was protecting the victim from embarrassment by not disclosing the full details of the assault, his failure to make school officials aware of the incident and the potential allegation of the bottle demonstrates a failure to fully and honestly conduct himself professionally. Respondent has enjoyed a long, successful, and popular run as a baseball coach in the district. At the end of the day, however, responsibility for the safety and well-being of his team rested with him. That job is unrelated to the success of the team or their desire to play in tournaments. Moreover, school authorities must be able to rely on a coach's veracity to completely and accurately report any incident that may occur during a school-sanctioned event. The stipulated facts of the parties provided: On March 31, 2008, George Young was the head coach for the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team. On March 31, 2008, the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team attended a baseball game in Plantation, Florida. Kevin Browning, Director of Human Resources, investigated allegations of an incident that occurred on March 31, 2008 involving the baseball team. Browning released his Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2008. Young was given a three day suspension, which is the subject of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent and denying his claim for salary reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 325 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4349 Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Harry J. La Cava, Ed.D Superintendent Indian River County School Board 1900 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3150
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, including Boca Raton Community High School (BRCHS). Respondent is employed by the School Board as a custodian, but is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings. As a custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the SEIU/Florida Public Services Union (SEIU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and SEIU (SEIU Contract). Article 7 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Employees Contractual Rights." Section 2 of this article provides as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the 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 in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Management Rights," and it provides, in pertinent part, that the School Board has the right "to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." Article 17 of the SEIU Contract provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, 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 the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union 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 Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union 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 the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed 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 if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. 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 Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless, there is another reasonably related act by the same employee within a twenty four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. 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 Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable law. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Prior to her suspension pursuant to Article 7, Section 2, of the SEIU Contract in December 2008, Respondent was assigned to BRCHS. Respondent started working as a custodian at BRCHS in or around 2006. At the time, she was a full-time employee, with hours from 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Respondent had poor attendance as a full-time employee. In or around December 2007, at Respondent's request, the School Board changed her status to a permanent part-time employee, with a four-hour, instead of an eight-hour, work day, five days a week. She continued to work an evening shift. It was hoped that the change to part-time status would result in improvement in Respondent's attendance. Respondent's attendance, however, did not improve. Consequently, on December 3, 2007, Cheryl Lombard, an assistant principal at BRCHS, sent Respondent the following memorandum concerning "[e]mployment [e]xpectations": In order to improve your job performance the following directives must be adhered to in order for the school operations to run efficiently: You are directed to report to duty at your assigned time 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, April 10, 2009. You are directed to work your complete four-hour shift from 4:00-8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You are directed to bring a doctor's note for every absence stating the dates you were under the doctor's care and that you have been released to perform all job responsibilities without restrictions. You are directed to notify the lead custodian/night administrator anytime you must leave campus during duty hours. You are directed to complete a TDE for all absences, late arrivals, and early dismissals from work. You are directed to follow your duty schedule. You are directed to clean all assigned areas in accordance with the procedures outlined by the District. You are directed to complete all assignments given in accordance with directions given. You are directed to refrain from using your cell phone except during your fifteen- minute break. In case of emergency, please contact Dr. Lombard. You are to report to the head custodian/designee upon your arrival on duty. You are directed to sign out with the lead custodian every night. You are directed to speak to all staff members and others in a professional manner while on District property or on duty. You are directed to refrain from threatening fellow custodians. Failure to follow any of the above mentioned directives will be considered insubordination and may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. In December 2007, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 9.75 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 9.5 hours. On January 25, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent a verbal reprimand (which was followed-up by a "written notation"). The written notation read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Notation of a Verbal Reprimand for Violation of School Board Policy 1.013 as it pertains to insubordination for failure to follow Directives Re: Attendance. Specifically, you have had excessive tardies and absences. Furthermore, you have failed to produce a doctor's note stating that you were under his/her care, as was required per the memo you received on December 3, 2007. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Further, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination. In January 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 22 hours. On February 6, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent a written reprimand, which read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Reprimand for insubordination Re: Attendance after our January 25, 2008 meeting. Specifically, on January 28 and February 4 you were absent and on January 30 you were 30 minutes late for your four (4) hour shift. Your conduct violated School Board Policy 1.013. Regardless of the circumstances that may have brought them about, such inappropriate actions and/or inactions on your part do not reflect positively on your position. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Furthermore, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar action in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent was out on medical/sick leave for a total of approximately six weeks in February and March 2008. On April 17, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent another written reprimand. This written reprimand read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Reprimand for insubordination regarding attendance after our April 15, 2008, meeting. Specifically, on April 16, you were absent for two and one half hours of your four hour shift. Your conduct violated School Board Policy 1.013. Regardless of the circumstances that may have brought them about, such inappropriate actions and/or inactions on your part do not reflect positively on your position. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Furthermore, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar action in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. In April 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 21 hours. In May 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 36 hours. Respondent's brother and father passed away in April and May 2008, respectively. In June 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 51.5 hours. In July 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 21 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 15 hours. 24, Up to and including August 6, 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 7.5 hours that month. On August 6, 2008, the principal of BRCHS issued Respondent a written directive, which read as follows: On August 6, 2008, you met with Ms. Lombard, Assistant Principal, and HR Manager Bob Pinkos to discuss the seriousness of your chronic absenteeism and tardiness. During that meeting the Written Directive provided you on December 3, 2007 addressing attendance at work and compliance [with] the duty schedule was discussed. Furthermore, the following disciplinary actions have been issued related to insubordination for failure to adhere to the December 3, 2007 directives. January 28, 2007 [sic] Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation issued for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. February 6, 2008, Written Reprimand issued for insubordination for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. April 17, 2008, a second Written Reprimand issued for insubordination for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. A copy of the December 3, 2007 directive is enclosed for your review. Although you have received several disciplinary actions advising you to comply with the December 3, 2007 [directive] your behavior with respect to attendance at work and compliance [with] your duty schedule continues to fail to meet expectations. Future similar incidents, to include those that may occur beyond the date of this directive and related to failing to follow the December 3, 2007 directive, will be considered insubordination and subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated as it would positively impact the operation at Boca Raton Community High School. The remainder of the month of August 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 22.25 hours and out on medical/sick leave a total of 3.5 hours. In September 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 33.25 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 4 hours. In October 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 23.25 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 5 hours. At the end of October 2008, following the completion of an "administrative personnel investigation of Respondent's "behavior with respect to attendance at work and compliance [with her] duty schedule," a "pre-disciplinary meeting" was held at which Respondent was given the opportunity to "explain or rebut the outcome of the investigation." At the meeting, Respondent acknowledged that she had "missed lots of time from work," but she claimed that she had "been trying to improve her attendance." In November 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 24.25 hours. Respondent was out on medical/sick leave for her entire four hour shift on December 1, 2008. On December 2, 2008, she was absent without leave and/or pay .25 hours. The following day, she was suspended. Respondent's poor attendance has adversely affected others at BRCHS. Sometimes, the work Respondent was responsible for was done, in her absence, by the other custodians at the school, which "created a bit of unrest" because these custodians also had their own work to do. On other occasions, when Respondent was absent, the work she was assigned went undone, which created a "problem for teachers [and their students] when they c[a]me in the next morning" and had to deal with classrooms that were not cleaned.
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 terminating her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia E. Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Karen Gadson 1711 Wedgewood Plaza Drive Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
