The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to terminate the employment of a non-instructional employee whose performance is alleged to have been unsatisfactory.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Ms. Dickerson was employed in the District as an education paraprofessional. For the 2000-01 school year, she was assigned to Meadow Park Elementary School (the "School"). That year, Ms. Dickerson worked under the supervision and direction of a special education teacher named Kimberly Vargas-Vila, whose half-dozen or so pupils, ranging in age from three to seven years, were children with autism. Ms. Dickerson was one of two paraprofessionals placed in Ms. Vargas-Vila’s classroom for the 2000-01 school year. In the discharge of her duties, Ms. Dickerson was required to feed students, help them in the toilet, assist the teacher in the classroom, assist children in play, watch them on the playground, make copies, and run errands for the teacher. Not long after the school year started, Ms. Vargas-Vila noticed that Ms. Dickerson resisted attempts by the other paraprofessional, who was a so-called "one-on-one" aide assigned to a specific student, to help Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Dickerson wanted to perform certain duties herself and often refused offers of assistance. Ms. Dickerson's unwillingness to share the work load was not initially disruptive but increasingly became so. In October 2000, another problem developed: Ms. Dickerson began to disobey Ms. Vargas-Vila's directions concerning the management of students' behavior. The teacher spoke with Ms. Dickerson about this issue, but Ms. Dickerson refused to discuss the matter with her. Instead, Ms. Dickerson sent a letter to the Board in which she unjustly accused Ms. Vargas-Vila of harassment. Unable on her own to resolve the problems she was having with Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila sought the advice of the School's Principal, Elizabeth Cardozo. After conferring, they decided that the three of them (the principal, the teacher, and the paraprofessional) should meet together. Accordingly, a meeting was held between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Cardozo on October 18, 2000. While the primary topic of discussion was Ms. Dickerson's allegation that Ms. Vargas-Vila had harassed her (which was groundless), other matters were discussed too, with the participants agreeing to reconvene if problems recurred. Despite this meeting on October 18, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila continued to have difficulties with Ms. Dickerson. Therefore, a few weeks later, on November 7, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila wrote a memorandum to Ms. Cardozo that related her concerns about Ms. Dickerson's ongoing failure to follow instructions relating to the behavior management techniques that she (the teacher) wanted to use with a particular student. In this memorandum, Ms. Vargas-Vila explained that she frequently had told Ms. Dickerson to ignore certain inappropriate behaviors in which the student in question was engaging, but Ms. Dickerson refused to comply. Rather than ignore the student, as directed, Ms. Dickerson would continue to talk and interact with the student. Ms. Vargas-Vila also had instructed that the student’s chair be placed slightly apart from the other students, but Ms. Dickerson, disobeying, had moved the student’s chair back towards the others in the group. Ms. Dickerson's defiance was causing friction in the classroom. When Ms. Vargas-Vila witnessed these insubordinate acts, she immediately discussed them with Ms. Dickerson, who either did not comment or expressed her opinion that the teacher's orders were inappropriate. Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum of November 7, 2000, reported as well that Ms. Dickerson continued to object when the teacher asked the other paraprofessional to handle duties that Ms. Dickerson felt were "her" tasks. As a result of Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum, a meeting was held on November 17, 2000, between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, Ms. Cardozo, and a District official named John Stevens. The meeting was difficult because Ms. Dickerson became loud and angry, accusing the attendees, among other things, of plotting to violate her Constitutional rights. She also made the weird charge that Ms. Vargas-Vila had employed a "fake cough" to aggravate her in the classroom. Notwithstanding these impediments to productive discourse, Ms. Vargas-Vila reviewed "improvement strategies" with Ms. Dickerson, who said that she would follow this advice. Afterwards, Ms. Dickerson was provided a written summary of the November 17, 2000, conference, which specified the areas in which improvement was needed and the recommended improvement strategies. For a while after the November 17, 2000, meeting, Ms. Dickerson's performance improved. But before the month was out, Ms. Dickerson had resumed refusing to allow the other paraprofessional to perform certain duties, and she had begun once again to disregard the behavior management techniques that Ms. Vargas-Vila prescribed. These problems continued into the next calendar year. Throughout January 2001, Ms. Dickerson's performance- related problems persisted. Ms. Vargas-Vila talked specifically with Ms. Dickerson about the need for her to follow directions and allow other people to help out in the classroom, but Ms. Dickerson did not change her unsatisfactory behavior. As a result, another meeting with Ms. Cardozo was scheduled, for January 25, 2001. The January 25, 2001, meeting was attended by Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Dickerson. During the meeting, Ms. Dickerson was told that she had failed to follow the improvement strategies that had been recommended——and which she had agreed to implement——during the conference on November 17, 2000. Ms. Dickerson was notified that if she continued to disobey the teacher's directions, she would be subject to disciplinary action. Finally, more improvement strategies were discussed, and these were reduced to writing, as part of the principal's conference notes, a copy of which was provided to Ms. Dickerson on January 30, 2001. As of the January 25, 2001, meeting, Ms. Cardozo was convinced that Ms. Dickerson’s job performance was unsatisfactory and that her actions were interfering with the instructional process in the classroom. Consequently, Ms. Cardozo sought guidance from Diane Curcio-Greaves, a Professional Standards Specialist at the District's headquarters, in regard to the preparation of a performance evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. The conditions of Ms. Dickerson's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement called the Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida and the Association of Education Secretaries and Office Professionals, dated July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000 (the "Union Contract"). The Union Contract forbade the recommendation of an employee for termination based upon an unsatisfactory evaluation unless that employee had been given at least 30 days to improve his or her performance. In view of this contractual provision, Ms. Curcio- Greaves and Ms. Cardozo decided that Ms. Dickerson would be afforded 30 days from the date she received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation within which to correct the identified deficiencies. On February 2, 2001, based on Ms. Vargas-Vila's input as well as her own observations, Ms. Cardozo recorded her assessment of Ms. Dickerson's performance on a Noninstructional Evaluation form used by the District. Ms. Cardozo rated Ms. Dickerson unsatisfactory under the categories of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments (specifically, under the last heading, for failing to follow directions easily and effectively). Ms. Cardozo assigned Ms. Dickerson an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Assistant Principal Diane Bell met with Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001, to discuss the unsatisfactory evaluation and to initiate a 30- day assistance plan. At this meeting, improvement strategies for each area in which her performance had been deemed unsatisfactory were recommended to Ms. Dickerson. These improvement strategies, together with a statement of the reasons why Ms. Dickerson's job performance was considered unsatisfactory, were set forth in a memorandum of assistance dated February 2, 2001, which Ms. Cardozo had prepared earlier. The evaluation and its attachments, including the memorandum of assistance, were presented to Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001. Ms. Dickerson acknowledged receipt of these documents, noting her disagreement with the contents and vowing to appeal "THIS FALSE PLOT!" In accordance with District policy and the Union Contract, Ms. Cardozo was responsible for monitoring Ms. Dickerson's progress during the 30-day assistance period and periodically meeting with Ms. Dickerson to review her performance and provide feedback. Ms. Cardozo scheduled several review conferences with Ms. Dickerson, to occur on Friday, February 16; Monday, February 26; and Monday, March 12, 2001. These dates were provided to Ms. Dickerson in a memorandum dated February 8, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson that same day. The first review conference was held on February 20, 2001.1 Present were the same persons as on February 5: Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Bell, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Cardozo discussed each previously-identified area of deficiency with Ms. Dickerson and told Ms. Dickerson what was expected of her to correct these deficiencies, which persisted. Ms. Dickerson was not receptive to advice and indeed refused to acknowledge that her performance was unsatisfactory. Based upon Ms. Dickerson’s comments and the fact that she had not been following the implementation strategies described in the February 2, 2001, memorandum of assistance, Ms. Cardozo was of the opinion that as of February 20, 2001, Ms. Dickerson’s job performance had not improved. On February 22, 2001, Ms. Cardozo wrote a memorandum detailing the discussion that had taken place during the February 20, 2001, meeting. This memorandum specified the areas of Ms. Dickerson’s job performance that continued to be deficient, and spelled out the steps that Ms. Dickerson needed to take in order to improve. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum on February 22, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson. On February 23, 2001, Ms. Cardozo formally observed Ms. Dickerson in Ms. Vargas-Vila's classroom for one hour. She noticed that Ms. Dickerson continued to be performing unsatisfactorily in the area of interpersonal effectiveness. A few days later, on February 26, 2001, a second review meeting was held with Ms. Dickerson. In attendance were Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Bell, Jeanne Burdsall (a Manager in the District's Office of Professional Standards), and Ms. Dickerson. At this meeting, Ms. Dickerson informed the group that she had spoken with the "Assistant Superintendent" concerning her belief that people were trying to take her job away and give her a bad evaluation. Ms. Dickerson was reminded that on February 5, 2001, she had been advised about the grievance procedures available to union members. Ms. Dickerson was again informed of her right to contact a union representative if she wanted to file a grievance regarding her evaluation. It is evident that by the time of the February 26, 2001, meeting, Ms. Dickerson was not implementing previously- recommended improvement strategies and had no intention of doing so. She continued to deny having performance problems and stubbornly resisted attempts to help her improve. Ms. Dickerson repeated the now-familiar but utterly unsubstantiated accusation that Ms. Vargas-Vila and others were harassing her and plotting to take away her job. Ms. Dickerson's comments had become alarmingly irrational and paranoid. On March 6, 2001, Ms. Dickerson received a copy of Ms. Cardozo's detailed memorandum describing the February 26 meeting. Ms. Cardozo continued to hold the opinion that Ms. Dickerson had not improved her job performance to a satisfactory level. The next day, Ms. Dickerson refused to change a child's diaper at the direct request of Ms. Vargas-Vila, claiming that it was not her job and complaining that the teacher's directive constituted harassment. Ms. Vargas-Vila immediately brought this incident to Ms. Cardozo's attention. Within hours, the principal had notified Ms. Dickerson in writing that she wanted to meet with her the following day, March 8, 2001, in order to review the notes that Ms. Cardozo had made concerning her February 23, 2001, classroom evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. Later that afternoon, Ms. Dickerson appeared in Ms. Cardozo's office, ranting loudly that she was being harassed and asking why they needed to have a meeting. Ms. Cardozo advised Ms. Dickerson that the reason for the meeting was to go over the results of the February 23, 2001, observation. Ms. Dickerson alleged (again) that she could no longer do her job due to the supposed harassment. Ms. Cardozo asked Ms. Dickerson if she was refusing to meet with her, and Ms. Dickerson told her she was not. At that point, Ms. Cardozo told Ms. Dickerson that she would arrange to discuss the observation of February 23, 2001, at the upcoming assistance review meeting, scheduled for March 12, 2001. Thereupon, Ms. Dickerson left Ms. Cardozo’s office, only to return minutes later to tell Ms. Cardozo that she was sick and leaving for the day. In light of Ms. Dickerson's outburst and bizarre behavior, Ms. Cardozo began to worry that she or her staff might be in danger. Ms. Cardozo’s last meeting with Ms. Dickerson was on March 12, 2001. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum of the observation that she had conducted on February 23, 2001. In the memorandum, Ms. Cardozo specifically commented on Ms. Dickerson's lack of interpersonal effectiveness. Ms. Cardozo also handed Ms. Dickerson a Noninstructional Evaluation form that she had completed on March 12, 2001, on which Ms. Dickerson was graded unsatisfactory in the areas of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments——the same areas in which Ms. Dickerson's performance previously had been considered deficient. Overall, the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Because she had failed to correct the identified performance deficiencies within 30 days, Ms. Dickerson was informed via a letter from the Chief Personnel Officer, which she received on March 12, 2001, that effective March 13, 2001, she was being reassigned to her home with pay, pending the Board's next meeting on March 28, 2001, at which time action would be taken to dismiss her. By memorandum dated March 12, 2001, Ms. Cardozo notified the Director of Professional Standards that Ms. Dickerson had been given an unsatisfactory evaluation after the end of a 30-day assistance period. Based upon the unsatisfactory evaluation, Ms. Cardozo requested a District review to determine further action, up to and including termination of Ms. Dickerson's employment. In due course, pursuant to District policy, a competency hearing was convened before a committee of District employees, to review the evaluation process and Ms. Cardozo's recommendation that Ms. Dickerson's employment be terminated. The committee determined that all of the procedures for terminating a non-instructional employee for unsatisfactory performance had been followed, and it voted to uphold Ms. Cardozo's recommendation. The superintendent accepted the committee's recommendation, executing a petition on March 15, 2001, which urged the Board to suspend Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, and to terminate her employment effective 15 days after the Board's decision or following an administrative hearing if timely requested. Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the Board suspended Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, as recommended. Ultimate Factual Determination Ms. Dickerson's job performance was unsatisfactory, and she failed to correct the identified deficiencies within the 30-day period prescribed under the Union Contract, despite the provision of ample assistance to improve her performance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of February, 1987.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a maintenance technician employed by Petitioner, committed the offenses alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03(1), Florida Statutes (2001). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a maintenance technician and was assigned to WLRN, the radio/television station operated by Petitioner. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Hernandez supervised a work crew consisting of Respondent and ten other maintenance technicians. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent, Mr. Hernandez, and several other members of the work crew had worked together since 1990. The work crew performed maintenance work at the radio/television station and at the various schools and other facilities that received signals from the radio/television station. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had his own truck that he used to travel to his various work assignments. Respondent is a frustrated employee who does not get along well with his co-workers or with Mr. Hernandez. Respondent believes himself to be more qualified than his supervisor and his co-workers, and he is ever vigilant for improperly performed work by the maintenance crew. Respondent keeps a copy of the job description for the position held by Mr. Hernandez, which he reviews on a regular basis to determine if Mr. Hernandez is fulfilling his responsibilities. Over the course of his employment with Petitioner, Respondent has had a history of threatening co-workers and other School Board employees. Prior to May 1, 2001, Respondent had threatened Mr. Hernandez with bodily harm on two occasions. As a result of his threats against Mr. Hernandez and other School Board employees, Respondent had been referred on more than one occasion to Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program. In 1995 Petitioner required Respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation 1/ to determine Respondent's fitness for work. For the two and a half weeks immediately preceding May 1, 2001, Respondent was off work. During that time Respondent's work truck was idle. On May 1, 2001, when Respondent returned to work, an incident occurred between Mr. Hernandez and Respondent that underpins this proceeding. 2/ While making the workday assignments on the morning of May 1, 2001, Mr. Hernandez informed Respondent that his work truck had been scheduled for routine maintenance that day. Respondent became upset because the truck had been idle for the previous two and a half weeks, and he believed that the maintenance should have been performed during that period. Mr. Hernandez assigned Respondent to work with Mr. Braddy, but Respondent refused that assignment. 3/ Respondent walked over to the maintenance garage with a tape recorder to have the mechanic state on tape when Respondent's truck would be ready. Respondent then returned to the area where Mr. Hernandez was still making assignments. Mr. Hernandez told Respondent to go work with Rafael Montesino, another member of the work crew. Respondent refused that assignment. When he heard the assignment and Respondent's refusal, Mr. Montesino told Mr. Hernandez he would not work with Respondent and that he would take the day off if he had to do so. By the time Mr. Hernandez began to leave the area to go to his own work assignment, the other members of the crew had left for their assignments. Respondent did not have an assignment and he remained in the area. As Mr. Hernandez was leaving the area, Respondent verbally assaulted Mr. Hernandez in a hostile, threatening manner. Respondent cursed Mr. Hernandez and threatened to kill him. Mr. Hernandez drove off from the confrontation. Mr. Hernandez filed a complaint with his supervisors regarding Respondent's behavior of May 1, 2001, by Memorandum dated May 2, 2001. Following an investigation Detective Mario Victores of Petitioner's school police prepared a report styled Preliminary Personnel Investigation (the report). The report substantiated two alleged violations of School Board rules by Respondent: Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, pertaining to responsibilities and duties of School Board employees and Rule 6Gx13-4.108, pertaining to violence in the workplace. Victoria Bradford held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to discuss the incident of May 1, 2001. Based primarily on Ms. Bradford’s recommendation, 4/ Respondent was referred to Petitioner’s Employee Assistance Program and his employment was suspended without pay for a period of 30 days. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which in Article II, Section 3, provides that members of the bargaining unit may be disciplined for "just cause." The CBA does not define the term "just cause." Article XI, Section 1A of the CBA provides for progressive discipline as follows: . . . Whenever an employee . . . violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the . . . rule, regulation or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline should be followed, however, in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. Article XI, Section 3 of the CBA provides as follows: 3. In those cases where any employee has not complied with the Board's policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 days without pay. The Superintendent must approve all suspensions. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08 provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Miami-Dade County Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against any students, employee, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent's employment for 30 days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a school custodian based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed June 21, 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public education within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Section 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a custodian at Miami Edison Middle School (Miami Edison) and Horace Mann. Both schools are public schools located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On May 16, 2001, Petitioner voted to suspend Respondent's employment as a school custodian and to terminate that employment. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system who is employed as a teacher assistant, an education paraprofessional, a member of the transportation department, a member of the operations department, a member of the maintenance department, a member of food service, a secretary, or a clerical employee, or any other person who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. Respondent is a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME). AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (the Agreement) that includes provisions for the discipline of unit members. Article II of the Agreement provides that Petitioner may discipline or discharge any employee for just cause. Article XI of the Agreement provides specified due process rights for unit members. Petitioner has provided Respondent those due process rights in this proceeding. Article XI of the Agreement provides for progressive discipline of covered employees, but also provides that ". . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employees [sic] record. " Article XI, Section 4C of the Agreement provides that employment may be terminated at any time for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. On February 6, 1996, Respondent was issued a memorandum from the principal of Miami Edison involving Respondent's use of profanity in the presence of students. In the memorandum, the principal directed Respondent not to use profanity on school grounds. On May 21, 1998, Respondent, Mark Wilder, Clarence Strong, and a student were in the cafeteria of Horace Mann preparing for a fund raising activity. Respondent spouted profanities directed towards Mr. Wilder and threatened him with a mop handle. Respondent feigned a swing of the mop handle, causing Mr. Wilder to reasonably fear he was about to be struck by the mop handle. Mr. Wilder had done nothing to provoke Respondent. Mr. Strong knew Respondent and was able to defuse the situation. Mr. Wilder reported the incident to Senetta Carter, the principal of Horace Mann when the incident occurred. Ms. Carter reported the incident to Petitioner's director of region operations. Respondent received a copy of the School Board rule prohibiting violence in the workplace. After investigation, the school police substantiated a charge of assault against Respondent. On March 15, 1999, Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards held a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent pertaining to the incident with Mr. Wilder. Respondent was specifically directed to refrain from using improper language and from displaying any action that another person could interpret as being a physical threat. On October 25, 2000, during the evening shift, Respondent physically assaulted William McIntyre and Noel Chambers while all three men were working as custodians at Horace Mann. Respondent shouted profanities towards both men, threatened them, and violently grabbed them by their shirt collars. Respondent punched Mr. McIntyre in the area of his chest and broke a chain Mr. Chambers wore around his neck. Mr. Chambers and Mr. McIntyre reported the incident to Robin Hechler, an assistant principal at Horace Mann. Respondent came to Ms. Hechler's office while she was interviewing Mr. McIntyre about the incident. When Ms. Hechler attempted to close the door to her office so she could talk to Mr. McIntyre in private, Respondent put his hand out as if to move Ms. Hechler out of his way. Ms. Hechler told Respondent not to touch her and instructed him to wait outside her office. Ms. Hechler later told Respondent to come in her office so she could interview him. Respondent was acting irrationally. Ms. Hechler told him if he could not control himself she would call the school police. Respondent replied that was fine and walked out of her office. Ms. Hechler reported the incident to the school police, who ordered Respondent to leave the premises. Following the incident, neither Mr. Chambers nor Mr. McIntyre wanted to work with Respondent because they were afraid of him. In response to the incident involving Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Chambers, the principal of Horace Mann referred Respondent to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program on November 2, 2000. Respondent's shift was changed so he would not be working with Mr. Chambers or Mr. McIntyre. On November 7, 2000, Respondent attacked J. C., a student at Horace Mann, in the cafeteria area of Horace Mann to punish J. C. for something Respondent thought J. C. had said or done. Respondent shouted profanities towards J. C. and choked his neck. J. C. was very upset and injured by Respondent's attack. Respondent was arrested on November 7, 2000, on the offense of battery on a student. On February 21, 2001, he was adjudicated guilty of that offense, placed on probation for six months and ordered to attend an anger control class. Respondent was also ordered to have no contact with J. C. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, prohibiting violence in the workplace, provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public Schools [sic] employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence will not be tolerated. School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07, provides that corporal punishment is strictly prohibited. Respondent's attack on J. C. constituted corporal punishment. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, provides as following pertaining to employee conduct: I. Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Ferguson 7155 Northwest 17th Avenue, No. 9 Miami, Florida 33147 John A. Greco, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 31st day of October, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment by the Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Hodgson was employed by the School Board as a custodian. She has been so employed since 1981. In 1999, Hodgson became deficient in the most basic element of a custodian's job--the duty to show up for work at her assigned school, in this case Miami Park Elementary (Miami Park). By July 1, 1999, Hodgson had accumulated ten unauthorized absences, enough to draw the attention of Principal Henry N. Crawford, Jr. (Crawford), and enough, standing alone, to justify termination under Petitioner's contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) the bargaining unit to which Hodgson belongs. At this time Crawford did not seek to terminate Hodgson's employment, although he could have. Instead, he counseled her regarding the School Board's reasonable and lawful requirement that she, like all employees, had the responsibility to inform the school's administration in advance of an absence, or as soon as practicable in an emergency. Nevertheless, on July 30, 1999, Hodgson left work at 6:46 p.m. instead of at the end of her shift at 11:30 p.m. Her area of the building was not cleaned properly and she was docked one half day's pay. For a considerable time after that incident, Hodgson's attendance improved. But in March 2000, her attendance again became a problem. Hodgson was absent 13 times between March 3 and March 20. Crawford again attempted to work with Hodgson, authorizing six of those absences. At the same time, he informed her of the obvious: that this level of absenteeism impeded the effective operation of the worksite. Crawford encouraged Hodgson to consider taking advantage of the School Board's generous leave-of-absence policy in order to preserve her good standing at work while taking the time necessary to deal with the issues which were causing her to miss work. Respondent neither replied to Crawford's proposal that she consider a leave of absence nor improved upon her by now sporadic attendance. Thereafter, Crawford requested assistance from OPS. On April 11, 2000, OPS wrote to advise Hodgson that she was absent without authority and that her absences were deemed abandonment of position. She was directed to provide written notification to OPS to review her situation or her employment would be terminated by the School Board. For a short time, Hodgson took this threat seriously enough to improve her attendance, but by now Crawford had a much shorter fuse with respect to Hodgson's disregard for workplace policies regarding attendance. When, on May 11, 2000, Respondent was an hour and a half late to work, Crawford sent her a memorandum the next day, again reminding her that she must report to work on time and that she was to report any absences or tardiness to school administration in a timely manner. Crawford wrote two additional warning memos to Hodgson in June 2000, but was unsuccessful in persuading her to improve her attendance or to discuss her situation, including the advisability of a leave of absence, in a forthright manner. Finally, Crawford directed Respondent to attend a disciplinary conference known as a Conference for the Record (CFR) on July 3, 2000, to discuss her absenteeism. At the CFR, Crawford again gave Respondent face-to-face directives to be present at work and when absences were unavoidable, to call the school in a timely manner. Two additional formal disciplinary conferences were held between the July 3 CFR and Respondent's termination. Crawford, having been unsuccessful in his efforts to generate honest communication with Hodgson about why a 20-year employee had stopped fulfilling her most basic job requirement, attempted to refer her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). EAP offers employees assistance in resolving personal problems in a manner which allows the employee to also fulfill work obligations. If such accommodations cannot be made, EAP counselors assist in helping the employee separate from his employment in a manner which does not blemish his resume. Supervisors such as Crawford may make referrals to the EAP whenever they feel an employee can and should be helped, and EAP services are also available for the asking to any School Board employee who wishes to take advantage of those services. No one is required to use EAP services, and Hodgson declined to do so. Hodgson's by now chronic absenteeism persisted. Her colleagues on the custodial staff tried, some more graciously than others, to cover her assigned duties, but Crawford was fielding an increasing number of complaints from teachers regarding their classrooms not being serviced. Morale among custodians declined in the face of the administration's seeming inability to control Hodgson. During the last two years of Hodgson's employment, she had 175 unauthorized absences. Eighty-one of those occurred in the last 12 months prior to her termination. By way of defense, Hodgson said that she developed diabetes in the past three years and that most of her absences were medically necessary. She offered voluminous stacks of paper which she claims document legitimate medical problems which made it impossible for her to work. Additional exhibits relate to a young relative she felt obligated to drive to medical appointments during her work hours. These exhibits prove little, if anything. Individually and collectively they are neither self-authenticating nor self-explanatory, and many had not been previously provided to Crawford in connection with her failure to appear for work, nor disclosed to the School Board in compliance with the pre-hearing order in this case. But even if these documents had been properly authenticated and would have in fact justified an extended medical and/or family hardship leave of absence, the evidence fails to establish that they were tendered to Crawford at the time Hodgson was absent. Hodgson did not seek medical or disability leave, either individually or through her collective bargaining unit. Hodgson offered no testimony to contradict the School Board's evidence regarding the dozens of occasions on which she failed to show up for work. Neither did she offer any evidence that her repeated failure to comply with attendance policies was justified due to any misconduct on the part of any of Petitioner's employees. At all times material to this case, the School Board was in compliance with applicable statutory and contractual provisions concerning employee discipline and termination with respect to Hodgson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice E. Hodgson 14020 Northeast 3rd Court, No. 5 North Miami, Florida 33161 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 30, 2002, and if so, whether his employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Mocombe has been employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher since 1997, when he graduated from Florida Atlantic University. He began his career substitute teaching at Sunrise Middle School (Sunrise), and later moved into a full-time position at Lauderhill Middle School (Lauderhill). In the years following graduation, while working as a teacher, Mocombe continued his studies at Florida Atlantic University and attained a master's degree and a Ph.D. He also received three formal reprimands, and a reputation as a person who could engage in adolescent behavior toward peers and insubordinate behavior to his principal without suffering any meaningful consequence. Mocombe calls himself a brilliant teacher, whose teaching philosophy is informed by his belief that "Revolution comes first. I'm a Marxist." Also a high priority for Mocombe is hedonism. Mocombe is known at Lauderhill as a "player," a term defined by one witness as "[S]omeone who has a lot of women and a lot of women [who] know about each other," a characterization which Mocombe embraces. Although married, Mocombe had a sexual relationship with a teaching colleague at Lauderhill by the name of Belinda Hope (Hope). He also was attracted to a first year teacher by the name of Kim Barnes (Barnes). Specifically, said he wanted to "get into her pants," during the 2000-2001 school year. Mocombe has no sense of boundaries in the workplace. He freely offers his opinions on religion, politics, and sex, some intended to be humorous, some not. Mocombe is aware of his need to be the center of attention and to shock people. He testified, "Even in school, I used to go walking around and said I was God just to get a reaction out of people." Most adults tread carefully, or not at all, around such deeply personal subjects. The training and ethics of the teaching profession emphasize respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, irrespective of his political and religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Teachers are educated to understand that sophomoric jokes about sex are not to be inflicted upon unwilling listeners. These lessons are reemphasized annually in sexual harassment training provided to all teachers employed by the School Board. Mocombe did not benefit from this training. He was known at Lauderhill for a constant stream of crude references to sex. He made no secret of his view that a woman's role is to have babies and serve men sexually. In addition, Mocombe would mock organized religion in the presence of colleagues who take their faith seriously. He often spoke of starting his own church, in which he would be known as Prophet Paul and the prerequisite for all women seeking to join the church would be to have his baby. Such comments, as well as his propensity to refer to women as "bitches" and "whores," were deeply offensive to some, but they kept silent. Lauderhill was an ideal environment for Mocombe. The atmosphere at the school is sexually charged to an extent inappropriate to the serious business of teaching children who are at a fragile stage of their own sexual development. Adolescent sexual banter consumes a great deal of time in and out of Lauderhill's teachers' lounge. At least in Mocombe's class, cursing and horseplay in the presence of the teacher-- even with the teacher--is acceptable. Unrebutted testimony placed an assistant principal in the main office discussing "sex, among other things," with Mocombe and other members of Lauderhill's staff in the main office at a time when at least one person not employed there could hear their discussion. Phillip Patton (Patton) was Mocombe's principal, first at Sunrise and later at Lauderhill. Patton's patience with Mocombe's behavior was seemingly boundless. In the lax atmosphere at Lauderhill, some of Mocombe's colleagues regarded his frequent references to sex, as well as to religion, politics, and the appearance of female colleagues, as harmless banter. Others, such as Marrisa Cooper (Cooper) who testified on Mocombe's behalf, felt that it was not the school's responsibility to deal with harassment; rather, the person at whom the harassment was directed should have the "balls" to deal with it. Cooper explained that it was understood at Lauderhill that Mocombe [believed] "that women are there to have children, which everyone always disagrees with statements because he always makes these general statements about women, and a lot of people take them as being belittling or degrading women. I don't take it personal because you are not talking to me, I know what I am made of and the way I am, so I never take them personally. But again, everybody maybe don't have the balls that I have." Others at Lauderhill were offended by Mocombe's conduct, but kept their silence, believing that Patton would not impose meaningful discipline on him. In fact, Patton's patience with Mocombe ran out only when Barnes and another teacher, Tracey Bryant (Bryant) put their complaints in writing, at which time Patton was required by School Board policies and procedures to forward the complaints for follow- up by trained investigators. The charges at issue here arise out of Mocombe's interaction with three individuals, student Hudson Mortimer (Mortimer), and the above-mentioned teachers Bryant and Barnes. Each situation is discussed separately in paragraphs 16 through 77, below. Hudson Mortimer: At the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Mortimer was a sixth grader at Lauderhill and a student of Mocombe's. Mortimer shares Mocombe's high opinion of himself as a teacher. Although Mortimer testified at the behest of the School Board, he volunteered, "I don't think he should get his license suspended." On October 11, 2001, Mocombe and Mortimer were "playing with each other." More particularly, Mortimer was "cracking" on his teacher, calling him "ugly and stuff." Mortimer's and Mocombe's accounts of the incident are consistent, and create a picture of two kids on the same level, playing together when they should be working. The incident began with Mortimer and Mocombe trading good natured insults, which included adolescent name-calling, using phrases such as "ugly-ass," while tossing whatever object was at hand at one another. Eventually Mocombe tossed a marking pen at Mortimer which hit the student over one eye, causing minor injury. The School Board contends that this incident constitutes the imposition of inappropriate discipline of sufficient severity to warrant termination. Pursuant to School Board rules and policies requiring that events which may give rise to litigation be documented, Patton, through a staff member, sent an accident report form to Mocombe for him to fill out. Mocombe refused, saying, "I'm not filling out anything, it was an accident. Patton wants to, he can fill it out himself." Patton took no disciplinary action against Mocombe for his refusal to comply with this routine and entirely appropriate request that he follow a reasonable School Board policy. This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that Mocombe was given to understand that there would be no meaningful consequence to him for ignoring rules which he did not wish to follow. Tracey Bryant: Bryant is a 13-year teacher. Her complaint against Mocombe arises out of an incident which she characterizes as sexual harassment, and which occurred in the teachers' lounge at Lauderhill on April 5, 2001. At the time of the incident, Bryant was one of about a half dozen teachers present in the lounge. While conversing with a colleague, she was interrupted by Mocombe who asked, "Ms. Bryant are you pregnant?" Stunned, she coldly told him, "No." Referring to Bryant and to another teacher then present, Mocombe commented to the effect that their "butts were getting to be alike---hanging." Bryant quickly left the room. Here, as with the incident involving Mortimer, Mocombe and the alleged victim tell similar stories. Both agree that Mocombe was intending to be jocular in his interaction with them. But while Mocombe's alleged student victim supports the manner in which Mocombe interacts with him in general, and in particular is not offended by the allegedly inappropriate conduct set forth in the Administrative Complaint, Bryant felt "humiliated and disrespected" by Mocombe's comments about her size. In addition, Bryant was aware of Mocombe's history of making what she viewed as inappropriate comments about and to females. She had heard him make numerous comments she regarded as inappropriate in the workplace to Hope, a good friend of hers with whom Mocombe would eventually have an acrimonious break-up. When the offensive comment about Bryant's size was directed to her personally, she complained, in writing, to Patton. The conflict between Bryant and Mocombe continued at the hearing. At one point, Mocombe snickered during legal argument being made by the School Board attorney while Bryant was on the witness stand. Mocombe was provoked by a comment made to him by the School Board's attorney (who in turn was admonished to direct his comments to the tribunal, and not to parties or witnesses) and said of the School Board's charges against him, "I find it baffling and humorous, yes." Bryant immediately jumped in to say, "That's how he is, yes. No remorse or nothing." Bryant's reading of Mocombe's attitude is accurate. During his testimony, Mocombe supplied details of the incident which were not presented in the School Board's case, and which reflect a lack of understanding of why his conduct was so offensive. After having months to reflect on why Bryant brought these charges, Mocombe remains unembarrassed by his faux pas of assuming--and saying aloud to a roomful of colleagues--that Bryant's weight gain was due to pregnancy. He volunteered during his testimony that rather than drop the subject after Bryant made her displeasure clear, Mocombe persisted, discussing his exchange with Bryant about Bryant's weight with another colleague, Vicki Drane. While not denying the substance of Bryant's account of the incident in the teachers' lounge, Mocombe argues that Bryant is out to get him because of his break-up with Hope. However, neither Mocombe nor any of his witnesses offered any type of corroboration in support of his assertion that Bryant and others conspired to avenge his spurned lover by getting him fired. After carefully observing Bryant's demeanor under oath, and considering the entire record, the undersigned finds no evidence to suggest that Bryant's testimony was untruthful, or that her complaint was motivated by anything other than her own distress at Mocombe's callous behavior in calling attention to her weight gain, behavior which hurt and embarrassed her in front of her colleagues. Kim Barnes: Barnes met Mocombe in the office at Lauderhill, where she was being interviewed for what would become her first teaching job. As previously noted, the School Board provides annual training to its employees regarding sexual harassment and other types of conduct inappropriate in the workplace. But Barnes' first contact with Lauderhill employees in their main office, where the administrative staff, including the principal, have their offices, suggested an atmosphere inconsistent with what is to be expected in a well managed place of learning. Mocombe acknowledges that he wanted to "impress" Barnes in order to "get into her pants." This is his account of his first meeting with Barnes in the school office: The first -- the very first interaction I had with Ms. Barnes were the beginning of the last school year. We were in teacher planning. She came in for an interview and we were all in the student office discussing sex among other things. Q. Who was we? A. Ms. Cooper, Ms. Mayo, who was the office manager, the assistant principal at that time, Mr. King, myself, and Ms. Barnes. And I made the reference about I want six children. My actual reference was my goal is to have as many little Mocombes running around so I can start my own revolution, take over the world, my own Marxist revolution and indoctrinate them. And she made the reference that she wanted to have five children. I thought hey, we could work out if that's the case. (Transcript page 276, lines 2-19). In hindsight, it was a mistake for Barnes to tell Mocombe the number of children she might like to have. The above-mentioned defense witness, Cooper, was an office worker at Lauderhill and was present and participated in the discussion of "sex among other things." Cooper, knowing of Mocombe's obsession with sex, deemed that Barnes, having joined the discussion to the extent of remarking that she would like to have five children, had granted consent for Mocombe to make sexual advances. Barnes' account of the conversation is slightly different. She recalls telling Mocombe she might like to have five children in response to a direct question by him. Perhaps she voluntarily "made the reference," as Mocombe recalls. This is the type of minor discrepancy to be expected from witnesses asked to recall the details of an event which took place months ago. What is important is that Mocombe did not then and does not now see why the comments which he freely admits making are utterly inappropriate to the time and place where he made them. Although Cooper considers herself a friend of Mocombe, in giving testimony on his behalf, she volunteered that on the day of the Barnes' job interview, Cooper commented to Barnes that Mocombe was "no good." Counsel for Respondent did not suggest what issue this testimony goes to, but the testimony offered on Mocombe's behalf, taken together, suggests a belief by Mocombe and his friends that Barnes was on notice that as a "player," Mocombe was unable to relate to professional women in a professional way, and that he was not expected to do so by his colleagues or supervisors. Barnes was hired and began work at Lauderhill in the fall of the 2000-2001 school year. In the beginning, Mocombe confined his comments to Barnes to acknowledging her presence, usually in terms of her looks, such as, "Hi, sexy." Over time, the comments became more graphic. Mocombe would remark on the size of Barnes' breasts, her "phat (pretty hot and tender) ass" and would state his desire to have sex with her in stunningly offensive terms. In November 2000, Barnes expressed her distress about Mocombe's conduct to Reginald Edwards (Edwards), a substitute teacher who also works as a Baptist pastor. Edwards reported Barnes' concerns to principal Patton. Patton did nothing to follow up. Barnes also expressed her distress to her assigned teaching mentor, Arnetta Davis (Davis). Davis advised her that Mocombe was well known for this type of conduct, and recommended that she try to "nip it in the bud." Barnes is not an aggressive personality, but she tried to make Mocombe understand that she did not appreciate his comments. Mocombe was not deterred. Her efforts to nip Mocombe's conduct in the bud having failed, Barnes conferred again with Davis. Davis confirmed what Barnes had come to suspect: Mocombe conducted himself in this manner because he had been doing so for as long as he had been teaching, with no more than a wrist slap ever imposed. Barnes came to hold a reasonable belief that, in Davis' words, "apparently everyone knew about it, [Mocombe's inappropriate behavior] it was just how he was, and everyone just basically looked a blind eye about it." Davis could not provide Barnes with any assurance that if she complained to Patton, Mocombe would experience any meaningful consequence. Worse, Davis confirmed Barnes' fear that she, Barnes, might be deemed a troublemaker and be "blackballed" if she complained. Barnes was in no position to be blackballed. At the time she began her employment at Lauderhill, she had not yet received her permanent teacher's certificate. Moreover, she needed a summer teaching job and believed she was not likely to get one by being a "troublemaker." Based upon Davis' advice, and her own observation that Mocombe's constant sex talk was part of the landscape at Lauderhill, Barnes reasonably feared that Mocombe would continue to be protected by Patton, and that her own career might be seriously impaired if she sought to avail herself of School Board policies and procedures designed to provide employees recourse from sexual and other types of harassment. Davis' advice to Barnes was reasonable. Davis had witnessed Mocombe conduct himself in an unprofessional and disruptive manner at faculty meetings with no apparent consequences. Interestingly, at least by the time of the hearing, Mocombe's perception of his relationship with Patton differs from the perception shared by most of Lauderhill's professional staff. Mocombe came to feel that Patton would go out of his way to write [Mocombe] up for anything which Patton believed to be a challenge to his authority. But the totality of the evidence suggests that at all times material to this case, the belief widely held by Lauderhill staff that Patton's patience with Mocombe was practically unlimited, is closer to the truth. By March of 2001, Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes had escalated. One day, Barnes came in to the teachers' lounge to check mail. About a half dozen teachers were present. Mocombe freely--indeed proudly--described this incident: he said, for all to hear, "I can't stand up because my dick is hard, or I'm hard." Davis was coming to believe that she could no longer ethically ignore Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes. Around the time Bryant made her written complaint to Patton, Davis went to Patton on Barnes' behalf. Patton in turn went to Barnes and told her that she had to put her complaints about Mocombe into writing if anything was to be done. Barnes did so. By way of defense, Mocombe suggests that Barnes was the aggressor, pursuing him to consummate a physical relationship. Mocombe says he chose not to have sex with Barnes. This excerpt from Mocombe's testimony fairly summarizes his theory of the case: The same reason she was inquiring of Mr. Edwards about me, and she found out about my dealings with women. I turned her down, all right. If that's what you want to ask, we didn't have sex because I didn't want to have sex. Q. She wanted sex but you didn't? A. I didn't say that. I just said we didn't have sex. I chose not to have sex. I didn't say -- Q. Did you ask her? A. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Q. To have sex with her? A. That's what you want. Yeah, we did. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Every day for 20 to 25 days in the classroom with this woman, and you think -- maybe you [sic] blind. Yeah, I'm a good looking man. You must be out of your mind. (Transcript page 310, lines 6-24). Mocombe also claimed, with reference to Barnes, "This girl hugged me every morning in the lounge" and that on at least five occasions she voluntarily engaged with him in activities which, if done by teenagers, would be called "making out." Mocombe never attempted to reconcile this testimony with his admission that he wanted to "get into [Barnes'] pants." Moreover, there are numerous ways in which the colorful incidents recounted by Mocombe, if they occurred, could be corroborated. For example, Mocombe claims he said to Barnes in the presence of two teachers, one of whom testified at the hearing, that he confronted Barnes after learning she had filed a complaint. As he described the scene, "I was like, hell, no. I didn't do anything to this heifer. I was like just Friday you were kissing me." Leaving aside the use of Mocombe's highly derogatory term "heifer," had Mocombe said such a thing in the heat of this particular moment, it surely would have made an impression upon Barnes and the other witnesses. Yet none of them was questioned about it. Rather, Mocombe expects the trier of fact to accept his version because, as he put it, "Come on now. Hey, I'm a good looking man. Not only that, I'm intelligent too I don't know what [sic]. So she is ridiculous. But you know what, she got that off. They set me up. It's good. I like that." Upon receipt of the written complaints from Bryant and Barnes, Patton, in accordance with School Board procedure, informed Mocombe of the charges and instructed him not to contact either complainant. According to Patton, Mocombe's response to the accusations was nonchalant. In fact, Mocombe was enraged. He ignored Patton's no-contact directive and approached both Barnes and Bryant in an effort to convince them to drop their complaints. This is how Mocombe described the scenes when he made his unauthorized approaches to Barnes and Bryant: "You know what the fuck, I'm sorry whatever [sic], just cancel this shit. . . . And then I went over to Tracey Bryant, and I was like what, you were having a bad day. I was asking you are you pregnant. She was like, yeah, she was having a bad day. Ms. Russell asked me to apologize. I like apologized. And that was it. That was it. And Ms. Bryant said she was going to drop it, and then that was it. " Elsewhere in his testimony, Mocombe described the post-complaint encounter with Barnes in more detail: ". I walked to her classroom . . . I was like what the fuck is your problem. Are you a psycho. What's the [sic] fuck. You know what, I actually said you are a fucking nut bag. What the hell is this. She was like---she sat on the desk. She got on the desk and was like I'm afraid of you Mocombe. I was like what the fuck is wrong with you. I am like are you a psycho. I am like are you psychotic." Because Mocombe is not charged with insubordination or any other infraction based upon his disregard of the instruction that he not communicate with Barnes and Bryant, ordinarily testimony about these communications would be irrelevant and inadmissible. But, Mocombe did not object to testimony about these communications from School Board witnesses, and was eager to talk about these encounters himself. Mocombe appears to view his accounts of these incidents as exculpatory. To the contrary, if Barnes had ever pursued a sexual relationship with Mocombe, one would expect that his tirade about her complaint would have taken a very different form. Mocombe's testimony on cross-examination provides additional insight into Mocombe's sense of entitlement to disregard basic standards of civility and respect towards colleagues, and to view any attractive co-worker as a potential sex partner. This passage, which summarizes Mocombe's view of the charges against him, is instructive on that point, and also contains an additional admission that he was seeking to have sex with Barnes: Can you get to the real issue here? I don't believe Mortimer is the actual issue here. The actual issue is regarding Kim Barnes and Tracey Bryant. Simply add that on to show some kind of -- that I'm an ineffective teacher. I'm a brilliant teacher. Even Patton will admit to that fact, and nothing here has anything to do with my ability to teach. Because I'll be frank, I'm a brilliant teacher, I'm 27 years old. Continue. Q. Thank you. Let's then go on to the major issue. The heifer as you described Ms. Barnes, you were just seeking to have sex with her; is that right? A. For the most part, yes. (Transcript page 295, lines 11-24). On this and several other occasions during his testimony, Mocombe stated, "I'm 27," in contexts which suggested that in his view, his youth exempts him from standards of conduct which apply to older people. The law makes no such distinction. The common thread which runs through the testimony of witnesses for both sides is that Mocombe believes his youth, good looks and personality exempt him from the constraints of middle class morality, to the extent that it demands that teachers exhibit basic respect for all persons, whether or not, in the teacher's opinion, such respect is deserved. Mocombe is a young man of obvious intelligence and charisma, and Patton did him a disservice in turning a blind eye to his refusal to conform his conduct to the requirements of the standards of his profession. Even at the hearing, Mocombe was unable to control his desire to articulate, in crude terms, his contempt for those he disrespects. This exchange from Mocombe's cross-examination is illustrative: Q. All right. And you also touched her body parts; is that correct? A. Sure. Don't you touch your wife? (Transcript page 298, lines 6-8). Asked at the hearing if he acted inappropriately toward Barnes, Mocombe replied, "According to her I did. No, I honestly don't think so, no. I thought it was in jest. . . . I thought it was just we were something. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck for Christ's sake. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. Anyway. No, I don't feel I acted inappropriately to Ms. Barnes." Mocombe has had months to think about it, but he continues to adhere to the belief that he is entitled to give free rein to his hedonistic impulses, and to express them in the crudest possible terms. Based upon the undersigned's careful observation of the parties and witnesses under oath, and throughout the hearing, and after careful consideration of the record as a whole, the suggestion by Mocombe and his witnesses that Barnes pursued Mocombe and was a willing participant in make-out sessions with him is expressly rejected. Neither has Mocombe proven a conspiracy by the friends of his former lover to destroy Mocombe's career. Even if School Board witnesses are motivated in whole or part by affection for Hope, and there was no competent evidence to support this view, the question of whether Mocombe may be lawfully terminated must be determined with reference to his conduct, and not the joy, or lack thereof, which witnesses may feel at the outcome. Prior disciplinary history: There is a theme which runs through the incidents which give rise to Mocombe's current difficulties. The common denominator is immaturity. Mocombe does not have an adult understanding of how his behavior offends contemporary standards of appropriate workplace behavior, and the corrosive impact of his coarse language and preoccupation with sex upon the professional environment which the public has a right to expect in its schools. In his short teaching career, he has received three reprimands, all relating to incidents in which he was unable to follow well known rules of acceptable workplace communication. Mocombe received his first reprimand while still a substitute teacher at Sunrise, where Patton was principal. He was reprimanded for using inappropriate language in the presence of students. The reprimand, dated January 5, 1999, included a directive requiring him to enroll in a teacher training class. On April 11, 2000, Mocombe was reprimanded for unprofessional and profane comments made toward his former lover, Hope. Mocombe's tirade occurred in Patton's presence. Mocombe screamed at Hope such comments as, "Fuck you, you bitch--yeah I fucked you, you ain't nothing but a damn whore; you're nothing but a good fuck; I am gonna put my foot up your ass." The letter of reprimand regarding this incident cited Rule 6B-1.006 which requires that educators refrain from engaging in "harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance or professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly process of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. " The letter specifically warned that further misconduct of any nature could result in termination of employment. On January 10, 2001, Mocombe received a letter of reprimand for sending a chain letter to all of his teaching colleagues at Lauderhill in violation of well-established school board policy prohibiting the use of the in-house email system for communications unrelated to work. Mocombe's testimony revealed a complete lack of understanding that he has done anything wrong. Instead, he believes he is being "railroaded" in these proceedings. Based upon his prior disciplinary history, and the manner in which his defense was conducted, the conclusion is inescapable that if reinstated, Mocombe would continue to exhibit, during working hours, his passion for "revolution, education, and hedonism" in whatever manner he pleases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order discharging Mocombe from further employment in the Broward County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1924 Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in Petitioner's Petition; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts During the 2014-15 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Frontier Elementary School ("Frontier"). Respondent is an experienced teacher. Facts Established at the Hearing Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Palm Beach County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Palm Beach County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules that are necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Palm Beach County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher in the Palm Beach County district school system for 16 years and has been teaching since 1996. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed at Frontier in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent previously taught second grade, third grade, and fifth grade in self-contained class settings. During the events relevant to this action, she was an English Language Learners (ELL) resource teacher to children in grades first through fifth. Her performance evaluations had been positive up until the events which are involved in this matter. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Classroom Teachers Association of Palm Beach County ("CTA"). Petitioner has alleged in its Petition that Respondent is guilty of the following violations of statute, School Board policies, or administrative rules: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c) and (2)(d) Commitment to the Student, Principle I; School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (4)(d), (4)(e), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 5.002, Anti-Bullying and Harassment, Expectations; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff, School Board Policies; School Board Policy 3.27, Criteria for Suspension & Dismissal and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; Article II, Section M of the CTA Collective Bargaining Agreement; Rule 6A-5.056, F.A.C., (2) Misconduct in Office; H. Rule 6A-5.056(4), F.A.C., of [sic] Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; I. Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. The facts underlying these alleged violations are outlined in paragraphs 8 through 12 of the Petition filed by the School Board dated March 2, 2016. See DOAH docket entry and Petition filed on March 2, 2016. Incident Involving Z.N. Z.N., a student of Respondent, was called by the School Board. On direct examination, he was unable to remember how he was treated by Turnbull when she was his teacher. Other than acknowledging that he remembered being pulled out of Petitioner's class, Z.N. articulated no credible, clear, or convincing testimony supporting any of the allegations lodged against Respondent regarding her interaction(s) with him. Z.N.'s mother, J.N., testified that Turnbull was her son's teacher when he previously attended H.L. Johnson Elementary School ("H.L. Johnson"). Z.N. would come home every day crying and seemed miserable in Respondent's class. These observations occurred when he was Respondent's student at that elementary school. He was moved to her class at Frontier on September 22, 2013. There were times when he attended her class at H.L. Johnson that he would come home from school and would be visibly shaking. He would throw up the night before school, and she would have to physically put him in the classroom while he would beg and scream not to stay. Prior to and after leaving her class, Z.N. did not exhibit those behaviors. She wrote a letter complaining to the principal about Respondent. His mother also testified that Z.N. has been diagnosed as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). The mother observed that on days where he had to attend school with Respondent at H.L. Johnson, she noticed a big difference in his sleeping and his eating. His demeanor would change, and he became withdrawn. The mother of Z.N. did not personally observe any interaction between her son and Respondent in the classroom. The father of Z.N. testified as well. He recounted that his son did not want to attend school while he was previously in Respondent's class at H.L. Johnson. He would become upset, emotional, and withdrawn. His son "threw fits," broke down, and cried when he had to go to school. To investigate his son's disconcerting response, the father personally "observed" the class three times, from outside the door.1/ During one visit, he observed the class being somewhat reckless, and Respondent was trying to get her class under control. He heard Turnbull slam a book on the desk to get the attention of the class. He heard Petitioner use the "F bomb" on one occasion.2/ When Z.N. transferred out of Turnbull's class, he started doing very well, began to succeed, and started to come out of his shell. He began going to school with less of a problem. Like the mother, Z.N.'s father did not personally observe or witness any interaction between his son and Respondent. E.D. was a student in the same class with Z.N. and Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She testified that she found Respondent to be a great teacher, and she learned things in the class with her. She felt that Turnbull was very nice to other students and her. She never saw Turnbull pick on Z.N., or treat him in a way that she felt was unfair. On the other hand, E.D. testified that Z.N. was loud and disruptive in class. Z.N. caused problems in the class which prevented the class from moving forward. E.D. did not recall hearing Respondent yell at any students, other than perhaps once when the class was loud. She never saw or heard Z.N. cry in class. The testimony of E.D. was credible and gained from personal knowledge and actual observation of teacher/student interactions in the classroom. Turnbull testified about her involvement with Z.N. At some point in time, Z.N. eventually became her class student. He was bright, although he had a diagnosis of ADHD and had been prescribed medication, which he "took infrequently, at best." He acted out and was disruptive in class virtually every day. He was disruptive in different ways, sometimes calling out and sometimes making funny noises with his mouth. At times, he would bother the other children. The behavior of Z.N., combined with that of other students, was difficult and disruptive, preventing her class from moving along according to the curriculum. As a result, the class was falling behind the other classes academically. Respondent did yell at Z.N. but not as a first resort. She would first talk to him and ask him to stop. She tried different techniques with Z.N., but admitted that there could have been times when her voice got louder when she had to repeat the same thing to Z.N. six or seven times within a short time period. She has a loud voice, which some students can interpret as yelling, but that was not her intent. Until the time Z.N. left her classroom, she felt that the parents were supportive. The mother sent her emails thanking her partially for what she was doing for her son, including an email thanking her for easing his transition into her class. She felt compassion for Z.N. and believed that he could not control what he was doing, particularly when he was not regularly taking his prescribed medication. The more persuasive evidence is that Z.N. presented teaching problems and challenges to Respondent. He disliked going to school after he was assigned to Respondent's classroom, but the undersigned is not convinced that his reaction to school was based on any traumatic treatment by Respondent. Z.N. himself offered absolutely no evidence regarding any wrongdoing by Respondent. Based on this record, there was simply a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation(s) that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule regarding her interaction with Z.N. Incident Involving Student A.C. A.C. was called by the School Board. He was Turnbull's fifth-grade student at Frontier. A.C. is now 13 years old and in seventh grade. On direct examination, he testified that he liked having Respondent as his teacher. He also recounted that there was not a time he did not want her to be his teacher or a time he did not want to be taught by her. Inconsistently, however, he also testified that he talked to his parents about getting him out of Respondent's class because she was rude and he did not want to be in her class. After he was no longer in her class group, there came a time when Respondent wanted A.C. to return to her group. A.C. testified that Turnbull came to get him and took him outside to talk. She stood close to him outside in a hallway alcove. He said that he was scared and nervous because he did not like the idea of a teacher talking to him. However, Respondent did nothing else to make him feel uncomfortable while they were standing in the hall. Respondent was merely talking to him. A.C. testified that when he spoke with Respondent in the hallway, she told him how much she liked him. She was not yelling or rude to him. This same hallway discussion between Turnbull and A.C. was apparently observed by Jacquelyn Marie Smith, a ten-year teacher at Frontier. She testified that one day as she was walking down the hallway with a few students, she observed Respondent and A.C. in the alcove of a doorway outside a classroom, standing about eight inches apart. It appeared to her that Respondent was speaking to A.C. and reprimanding him for something. She observed the look on A.C.'s face and could tell that he was very uncomfortable. However, she did not hear anything said by either Respondent or the student. She assumed the student was being disciplined based on his body stance and facial expressions. She did not observe Respondent place her hands on A.C. in the hallway. She testified that she observed the situation for "maybe 10 seconds."3/ There was nothing about Respondent's demeanor, posture, or anything else that led her to believe that Respondent was angry or upset. She never observed A.C. crying during her brief observation of this hallway encounter. Another teacher, Rosa Cabrera, testified that as she was passing by, she also saw Respondent in the hallway with her finger pointed at "J," a second-grader. Respondent was crouched down in the student's face saying things which Cabrera could not hear. She had no idea what Respondent was saying to the child. She did not hear anything, although she passed very close to Respondent and the student. The two were talking in a tone lower than a typical conversational tone. Like Smith, Cabrera found the fact that Respondent was standing so close to the student to be improper.4/ Respondent testified that A.C. was removed from her group for a period of time. She understood that he had gone home one day and expressed to his father that he was upset because he felt that she did not like him or that she had been mean to him and he did not want to go back to her class. When he was removed from her teaching group, Turnbull became concerned about A.C. not being provided the teaching instructions he needed. It was unrebutted that she exchanged emails with the assistant principal expressing her concern for him and her desire to work with A.C. again. As a result of her request, she was directed by the assistant principal to work with A.C. again. Respondent decided to speak to A.C. first to be sure that he was comfortable with her. She asked A.C. to come out of his class into the hallway, and they spoke in the hallway alcove. The alcove was the width of the door and perhaps an additional six inches on either side. She did this so that their conversation would not be overheard by classmates, would not embarrass him, and to ensure that A.C.'s privacy would be protected. She stood close to A.C. because there was little room in the alcove and she could hear his voice. She wanted to speak quietly and gently to him so that she would be more reassuring to him.5/ Respondent told A.C. that she understood that he felt that she was angry at him for some reason. She told him that she wanted to reassure him that she was not angry with him. Respondent told A.C. that there had been some misunderstanding between them and she would like to try to clear it up. She asked him how he felt about coming back into her class group, and told him that they missed him because he was a great addition to it. By the time the conversation was over, A.C. was smiling. They shook hands and said that they would see each other in group later that day. A.C. came to her group later that day and had an excellent session, smiling more than he had before. At no time in her conversation with him was there any scolding, anger, or cross words used. The evidence from the student, A.C., did not support a finding of any violations by clear and convincing evidence. What he did recall, and testify to, did not amount to infractions by Respondent. Likewise, the fellow teachers' unfavorable conclusions about what they observed in the hallway alcove were based on brief observations and did not constitute clear or convincing evidence of any violations. Incident Regarding Marisa Madzi Respondent "pushed in" to the classroom of Marisa Madzi, a third-grade teacher at Frontier.6/ Madzi alleged that Respondent "corrected her" in front of the class, although Madzi could not recall specifically what the correction was about. She recalled that Respondent "chimed in," telling her that she was wrong about a point or topic she had been explaining to her class. Madzi felt that Respondent acted in an unprofessional manner and that if she had an issue, she thought she should have addressed it afterwards and not in front of the class. However, Respondent's statement in front of the class did not cause her to stop her teaching. Respondent previously complained to Madzi that Madzi was loud in the classroom when she taught and that it was interrupting Respondent while she was working with her small group.7/ Respondent explained the incident in a different way. She was working with her students when one of them shared with her his response to Madzi's explanation of the answer. The student explained to Turnbull that he did not understand why his answer was wrong. She looked at the question and could see where his confusion came from. Either Madzi walked over to her to determine what she was talking to the student about or Respondent gestured for her to come over. She told Madzi that "I explained it to him, but you may want to go further into explaining to him why that's the right answer." Madzi had a reaction to being called over by Turnbull and said, "Okay, I will take care of it." Madzi had a funny look on her face that made Respondent uncomfortable. Thinking that Madzi may have been upset by their interaction in class, Respondent sent her an email (Resp. Ex. 40), saying that she did not intend to step on Madzi's toes. The purpose of the email was to apologize for giving Madzi the impression that she was correcting her. Turnbull testified that during the entire time that Respondent worked at Frontier, Madzi never spoke to her to suggest that there was anything about her, her teaching style, or her dealings with her students that she was uncomfortable with. The undersigned finds that there was not clear or convincing evidence to conclude that the incident in Madzi's class constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Incident Involving Rose Cabrera Rose Cabrera has been a teacher at Frontier for 12 years. She was driving home from campus one day and felt that Respondent was driving behind her in an aggressive manner.8/ The next day Cabrera approached Respondent on campus and said that she was the one that Respondent was tailgating and yelling at. She claimed that Respondent immediately got upset and started yelling at her and telling her that she was unprofessional. Cabrera then walked away. The next work day, Respondent stopped Cabrera in the hallway and asked to talk. Cabrera claimed that Respondent told her that "there were two possible reasons why people tailgate; either they are crazy or they have a problem, like something's going on." Cabrera testified that she walked away; but, that Respondent continued to yell at her, saying that she was unprofessional and pointing her finger at her. No students or other employees were present at either of these encounters between Respondent and Cabrera, and none were called to testify about them. Turnbull testified that she recalled the incident. She was running late for an appointment and was driving in a rush. She did not recognize the person driving the car in front of her. The next day, as she left the mail room, a person whom she did not recognize was blocking her way. The woman began to berate her, stating that Respondent had been tailgating her, that she was crazy on the road, that the woman had recently had an accident and was very nervous on the road, and that Respondent should not have been doing what she did. Respondent "could not get a word in edgewise." Neither woman was shouting. Shortly thereafter, Respondent saw Cabrera in the hallway and asked to speak with her. She tried to explain to her that she was sorry if she had upset her on the road. The two were talking over each other, but Respondent tried to explain that if somebody is behind her or beeping or waving or tailgating, she usually just gets out of their way, as obviously they are in a hurry for some reason. Cabrera said that she did not want to talk to Respondent. She had upset her the other day and was upsetting her again, so she walked away. As Cabrera was walking away, Respondent told her she was being unprofessional because she was not allowing Respondent to reply to the accusation. They never spoke of the matter again. The off campus incident on the road and the follow-up discussions on campus do not support a violation of any statute, rule, or policy by clear and convincing evidence. There was no credible evidence presented to suggest that any students or other staff members were affected, and the dispute was in the nature of a personal disagreement between Turnbull and Cabrera. This conduct and personal encounter, while regrettable, did not rise to the level of a violation of a statute, policy, or rule by Respondent. Incident in Alyssia Liberati's classroom. Alyssia Liberati worked as a teacher at Frontier for approximately 15 years. Respondent was teaching two students at the back table in her classroom, while Liberati was teaching the main class a social studies lesson. Liberati asked her students a question and, when some raised their hands, Respondent inexplicably raised her hand as well. The students thought that was funny. Liberati did not find Respondent's action to be appropriate because she was asking the children the question, not Respondent. Liberati could not remember whether Respondent was working with her students on a separate matter or whether they were included as part of the social studies lesson. Respondent claims they were coordinating their work, and one of her students wanted to participate in Liberati's question. Turnbull further testified that when the class was asked this question by Liberati, one of Respondent's own students had the correct answer. She encouraged the student to raise his hand and answer Liberati's question. When he just smiled, she offered to raise her hand for him, and he agreed. When she raised her hand, Liberati called on her. When the student would not answer, despite her encouragement, Respondent announced the student's answer and attributed it to him. Liberati said nothing to her then or after class and did not chastise her in any way, then or later. Respondent testified that part of her job was to help the English for Speaker of Other Languages (ESOL) students acquire oral language and the ability to socially interact and participate. She wanted to show the student that he should not be afraid of participating. Liberati continued on with her class and never suggested to Respondent that by raising her hand and offering her student's answer, she had disturbed her class. Empty Classroom Incident with Alyssia Liberati On another occasion, Respondent went to Liberati's classroom to "push in" and found the classroom dark and empty. Respondent waited for approximately ten minutes, thinking that the students may have been out of the room for some reason and would be late getting back. When the class never appeared, Respondent left. She wrote an email to Liberati, asking that she be notified in the future if the class and teacher were not going to be in the room at her designated arrival time.9/ Pet. Ex. 12. Liberati testified that she received an email from Respondent that night, which she characterized as requesting that she let Respondent know next time in advance if she was not going to be in the classroom because her time is valuable, that she does not have much time to go from one classroom to the next, and that she had wasted her time trying to find out where her students were. She responded to the email late that night, explaining about her daughter. She found Respondent's email to be offensive and inappropriate. The next morning, Respondent read the late night email from Liberati and, for the first time, found out about Liberati's daughter's situation. She responded immediately to Liberati and explained that at the time that she wrote her email, she had not known that Liberati's absence had been due to a family emergency. She also inquired about the well-being of her daughter. Pet. Ex. 12. Respondent further wrote, "No offense was intended," and "[S]o I hope none was taken." She followed up by going to Liberati's room in the morning to ask her if she had seen her email from that morning. Liberati replied that she had not yet seen it. Respondent explained to her that had she known that Liberati's daughter was ill, she would have never sent the email. Respondent told Liberati that her daughter takes priority and that she inquired as to how her daughter was doing. Liberati testified that she was offended by the email and that Respondent did not have to send it. She felt that Respondent could have asked another teacher where her students were. Respondent tried to explain to her that she had been instructed not to knock on other teachers' doors for any reason, so she did not-–as she did not want to disturb other classes. Nonetheless, Liberati was very angry with her. During Respondent's follow-up about the second email the next morning, Liberati felt that Respondent was in her personal space and she felt uncomfortable. She noted that Respondent's tone was very rude and confrontational and felt Respondent should not be speaking to her like that in front of the children in the hall. However, Liberati acknowledged that Respondent expressed to her in one form or another that no offense was intended. Liberati's coworker, Tara Levine, saw Respondent come down the hallway the next morning in what she described as a fairly aggressive manner, at a fast pace and with an annoyed look on her face. Levine observed a conversation between Liberati and Respondent which she felt was "a little heated." However, Levine admitted that she could not remember the conversation or its tone. She felt it was necessary to remove students from the area, which was in the hallway just before school started. Levine testified that Respondent's finger was in Liberati's face, although she observed that Liberati is much taller than Respondent, who was standing very close to Liberati. Levine never reported the incident to any administrator. Based on an objective view of the facts involving Liberati's classroom hand-raising incident and their exchange of comments regarding the empty classroom incident, there is no clear and convincing evidence that these events constituted a violation of any statute or rule. Respondent was attempting to coach her student to raise his hand when he had the right answer, and then modeled the hand-raising for him. Rather than doing something improper, Respondent was serving her student in a manner that caused no problem to Liberati. While Liberati may have been taken back by this technique, it did not constitute a violation of any rule or policy. Likewise, there was nothing improper about the email written by Respondent, who did not know about the ill child. When she found out, she responded appropriately and with due concern for the child, explaining that she did not know of the circumstances. Although the undersigned credits the observation by Levine, the hallway confrontation between Liberati and Respondent does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence to support a violation of statute, policy, or rule. Incidents Involving J.B. Respondent taught in a class of students with Janet Vino, a teacher at Frontier. Vino testified that Respondent was very aggressive toward her student, J.B. Respondent would get "in his face," speaking loudly enough for the rest of the class to hear. While Vino conceded that there was nothing inappropriate about reprimanding a student who is having behavior issues, Respondent did so in a way that Vino could hear Respondent as she was teaching her lesson off to the side. Vino described Respondent's demeanor with J.B. as very loud, with her being very close to him and with her fingers pointing in his face. Vino said that Respondent on occasion would ask her in class whether she had issues with him too. On occasion, J.B. would hide in the bathroom to avoid going with Respondent. When he would come out to go with her, he would be sulking. J.B. was in the midst of a number of family and legal-related problems, and he also had discipline issues. Vino acknowledged that she was never trained to avoid pointing your finger and shaking it at a student or not to "get too close to a student." Respondent conceded that she had problems with J.B. He would not do his work and was disruptive. J.B. would do disruptive things, like crawl under the work table and lift it up with his shoulders, while she was working with the other students. J.B. spoke to her disrespectfully at times and would hold up the class by taking his time getting started and by not being ready when she would arrive to pick him up. Sometimes he would go in the bathroom and would not come out. The effect of J.B.'s behavior on her teaching was to limit the time that she had available to teach him and other students in his group. It often took ten minutes to get J.B. to the room and seated at the table, before they could even get started. His behavior interrupted the lessons that Respondent was trying to teach and interrupted the learning of the other students. Respondent sought help with J.B. from his teacher, Vino, and Assistant Principal Witt. Respondent sought help from Vino one time in her classroom, calling her to ask if she could come over and help with J.B. because he was refusing to work and instead was writing on the worktable with a crayon. Vino never complained to Respondent about her request for help but seemed unwilling to help her with J.B. As a result, Respondent did not seek her assistance again. Turnbull sent emails to the principal and the assistant principal concerning J.B. and his problems at school. Respondent felt that J.B. was a special child who came from a difficult situation and that people at the school should be working to help him. She wanted to keep the administration informed regarding her dealings with him and how he was doing with her. Resp. Exs. 10, 11, 12, 15, and 24. Respondent made efforts to try to work with and communicate with J.B., notwithstanding his behavioral issues. She tried speaking to him directly and told him that his behaving was keeping him from learning and preventing the other student from learning. Respondent testified that she liked J.B., and, as disruptive as he was, she felt a great deal of compassion for him. She understood his bad situation at home and knew that his family was split up among foster homes. She believed that his disruptive behavior was attention-seeking and that he was an angry boy. The undersigned finds that the more credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had trouble with J.B., who presented a formidable challenge to teach. This very likely would have been true for any teacher dealing with him. Respondent sought help from his teacher and the administration. The observations and concerns raised by Vino, while understandable, do not rise to the level of providing clear and convincing evidence of a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Behavior Observed by Principal Susan Groth Susan Groth has been the principal at Frontier for six years. She felt that the collegial and helpful climate at her school changed after Respondent came to the school. While offering no causal or underlying link to Respondent, Groth claimed that teachers became more reserved, no longer left their doors open in the morning, and had fewer interactions with one another. She claimed that this collegial atmosphere changed with Respondent's arrival.10/ Groth claimed to have personally witnessed that after certain encounters with Respondent, Community Language Facilitator Melady Roque would be shaken and crying.11/ Groth personally encountered combative behavior from Turnbull when she would try to have conversations with her. She also started to receive complaints from other teachers about Turnbull.12/ In response, she offered Respondent different training opportunities, which Respondent attended. Groth provided Respondent with two mentors for advice because she was new to the "push in" and "pull out" class system at Frontier. Groth was made aware of issues involving Respondent from other teachers within her first three weeks at the school. She received reports about Respondent concerning intimidation, humiliation, interruptions, unprofessionalism, and Respondent being very defensive.13/ However, she did not witness those encounters or behaviors herself. She noted that Respondent was defensive when she would provide constructive feedback to her. During one of her classroom observations of Respondent at work, a student misread certain sight words. Respondent nonetheless praised his work. Groth addressed the matter with her. She felt that Respondent's response to her counseling was very defensive. Subsequently, Groth gave a written observation report to Respondent. Respondent disagreed with several observation points made by Groth. She provided Groth with a written explanation setting forth her rebuttal and verbally defended her position.14/ Despite this, when Groth provided her with helpful resources and training to review, Respondent participated. However, Groth felt that Respondent did not accept her criticism very well. The issues that Groth had with Respondent were becoming less serious as time went on. It appeared to Groth that by January of Respondent's first year at Frontier, Respondent was beginning to properly adjust to the school environment and personnel. However, shortly thereafter, during an investigative meeting with Turnbull, Groth confronted Respondent with the names of several teachers that had complained about Respondent's behavior.15/ During the meeting, Turnbull had a pad of paper out and was bearing down hard and writing every time a new name of a witness was disclosed by Groth. At one point, she threw down her pencil on the table in frustration and stated, "This is horse shit." She did not throw the pencil at any person, nor did Groth think that it was her intent to do so. Respondent's union representative, at one point, had to calm her down because Respondent's arms were flailing, and she was explosive. Respondent used profanity during the meeting.16/ Despite Turnbull's actions, the process went on to completion. Neither Respondent nor her union representative ever asked for the meeting to be adjourned. Respondent's actions during that meeting were documented.17/ Pet. Ex. 11. Turnbull provided her version of this investigatory meeting with Groth. She received notification that an incident involving A.C. was being investigated. The notice of the meeting advised her that there was going to be an inquiry into an incident regarding A.C. At the meeting, other matters, unrelated to A.C., were brought up by the principal. Respondent objected to the other matters being raised. She felt that she had been "blindsided" and was being treated unfairly by consideration of matters that were not part of the official notice to her. Respondent became upset and started crying because these issues were statements made against her by colleagues, and she did not know so many people were upset with her. She testified that none of her colleagues ever approached her about any of these complaints or issues. She thought that the meeting was called to discuss one specific incident regarding one specific child. She was overwhelmed when she learned that there were so many complaints against her by teachers who had never said anything to her. Respondent was completely unaware that the statements from other teachers had even been taken. She admitted she felt betrayed and was extremely upset, stunned, and shocked. She did not threaten any person and did not confront any of the complaining teachers or staff members. Groth claimed to be worried about the safety and security of her staff and students, because of Respondent's profanity, emotional state, and explosive behavior at the meeting. Groth worried about Respondent "going after" one of the people on the list of witnesses announced at the meeting. After the meeting, Respondent was escorted off the campus without incident. Groth's belief that the mood at her school changed after Respondent arrived, without her own specific observations of conduct by Respondent, is nonetheless credited. However, her "sense" of an atmospheric change falls short of clear and convincing evidence of a violation of a policy or rule by Respondent. While Groth had the responsibility to observe and evaluate Respondent's performance, Respondent had the right to professionally and respectfully defend that performance in the observation conference. The manner of her evaluation performance defense does not violate any statutory policy or rule. However, the undersigned finds that Respondent's use of profanity and her unrestrained and explosive conduct, at the investigative meeting, were inappropriate and insubordinate. Petitioner provided sufficient and credible evidence to prove a violation of the rules and policies by clear and convincing evidence regarding her actions and conduct during this investigatory meeting with Groth. Other Relevant Events and Testimony From Respondent Aside from teachers who claimed difficulties or hostile encounters with Respondent, there were also teachers and colleagues who complimented her work and teaching methods. Janine Brockelbank has been a "push in" teacher at Frontier since 2003, like Turnbull. When she worked together in the room, she did not observe any problems with Turnbull. She observed Respondent working with Lisa Caprio's students, and the interaction seemed positive and professional to her. Turnbull often spoke closely and quietly to children in consideration of the privacy of the children and to prevent embarrassment. Brockelbank also stated that Respondent was cooperative and collaborative when they compared lesson plans with one another. Caprio taught at Frontier since it opened in 2001. She found Respondent to be on time and was always prepared to work with students. She promptly got started with the students and seemed to be ready to work with them. Caprio never had any issues with Respondent in her classroom. Caprio stated she did not find any issues with a teacher interrupting her lesson for assistance with a student. In her view, it was appropriate for a "push in" teacher to ask for her help with a student. Jennifer Eddy taught at Frontier for 13 years. Eddy observed Respondent work with her students. There was nothing that Respondent did while she was teaching in the same room that disturbed her or kept her from doing her job, nor caused her concern for the well-being of Eddy's students while they were taught by Respondent. Eddy thought that Respondent's one-on-one instruction seemed appropriate, collaborative, positive, helpful, and beneficial to the students. Catherine Burda is a 14-year veteran teacher at Frontier. She observed Respondent work hard and well with one of her students and felt she learned a lot from Respondent. Respondent had a good relationship with her students and came prepared each day. Burda wrote a positive and praising email to the principal regarding Respondent's work. Resp. Ex. 16. Burda appreciated that Respondent always spoke honestly and freely with her. Karen Lundgren worked with Respondent at H.L. Johnson and considered her to be a good colleague. Lundgren worked closely with Respondent, who was cooperative, collegial, and friendly. Respondent got along with students and taught them well. She acted professional and caring towards both students and colleagues. Smyrna Daumec, an 18-year teacher, taught with Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She found Respondent to be a good colleague because Respondent would contribute ideas on how they could work together and they shared lesson plans. Notably, she witnessed Respondent having professional disagreements with colleagues, but none of those professional disagreements adversely impacted her ability to teach. Respondent knew the material that she was teaching and was a cooperative coworker. Respondent was kind to the students and not belittling or mean. Parent S.S. had a daughter in Respondent's third- grade, gifted math class at H.L. Johnson. Her child learned and made progress in Respondent's class. Respondent remains her favorite teacher to this day. Her child learned and achieved in Respondent's class. Respondent consistently kept S.S. updated on her child's progress through email or notes in the agenda. S.S. never had any problems with Respondent, and her daughter had a good year of school when she was with Turnbull. She observed that Respondent interacted warmly with students and parents and acted very friendly and cheerful. Parent C.B. knew Respondent as a teacher for her two children at H.L. Johnson. When her children had Respondent as a teacher, they never acted or manifested a desire not to go to school. Respondent kept her updated on her children's progress, and she had open communication with Respondent while she was the teacher for both of her children. She found Respondent to be volunteering and helpful. She saw Respondent interact with other children in addition to her own when she was on campus and did not observe anything that was negative in those interactions. Her children had good years in school when they were in Respondent's class and seemed happy with her as a teacher, despite Respondent being a strict teacher. As a parent, C.B. was very happy with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order withdrawing the proposed five-day suspension and issuing instead a letter of reprimand to Respondent regarding her conduct during the investigatory interview with her school principal. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2017.
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.
