The Issue The issue for determination is whether the School Board has proven the allegations set forth in the Notices of Specific Charges dated April 3, 2001, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The incident giving rise to this case occurred on November 14, 2000. At that time, Respondents Gregory Adams (Adams) and Brett T. Scanlon (Scanlon) were employed as teachers by the School Board and assigned to William Chapman Elementary School (Chapman). Adams has been employed by the School Board since August 1996, and has taught at Chapman since 1998. Scanlon has been employed by the School Board at Chapman since October 1999. Adams and Scanlon shared a second grade classroom during Scanlon's first year at Chapman, and Adams became a mentor to him. At the start of the 2000/2001 school year, Scanlon was assigned to teach third grade, while Adams continued to teach second grade. The complaining witness against Adams and Scanlon, Miguel Suarez (Miguel), was nine years old at the time of the incident. Like many of the teachers and administrators at Chapman, Miguel is of Hispanic origin. English is his second language. Miguel's academic functioning is quite low. In terms of expressing himself, he functions at a four or five-year-old level. His memory functions no better than that of a five- year-old. He was not sure, for example, what school he had attended last year. Miguel is unable to reliably sequence events. He is eager to please and, at least in the presence of the undersigned, attempted to ascertain what adult authority figures wanted and to give it to them. Miguel's learning disabilities are not the first thing one notices about Miguel. Indeed, Miguel began the 2000/2001 school year as a second grade student in a regular education class. It was not until mid-October that the professional educators who worked with him daily mustered sufficient evidence to identify his learning disabilities and appropriately place him into a learning disabilities (LD) program for part of the day. Miguel's family is not adept at communicating effectively with school teachers and administrators. Miguel's mother, Silvia Gomez (Gomez), does not strive for a united front between home and school. In addition to his mother, Miguel resides with her live-in boyfriend. Both are irregularly employed. Sometime prior to the incident on November 14, 2000, Miguel's father had committed suicide. Miguel was aware that his father had died, but had never received counseling directed to this loss. Adams is an African-American from an impoverished, hardscrabble background. Out of seven siblings, he and one other have achieved a college education. Adams feels an obligation to encourage children of similar background. Scanlon is a white male, who previously served in the armed forces. His professional bearing is reminiscent of what official Miami used to look like. He too is committed to teaching. At the time of the final hearing, Chapman’s racial and ethnic composition, as well as the mix of English and Spanish spoken as first languages, typifies the rich diversity of Miami-Dade County in the 21st century. But it also provided fertile ground for misunderstanding, miscommunication, and mixed signals. Compounding the potential for trouble at Chapman, at the time of the incident, some teachers employed a practice called ”time-out” to deal with students with whom they were having a problem at a moment when they were not able or willing to deal with the problem themselves. Time-out, though not part of the officially approved discipline program at Chapman, was widely known in the school. The practice was discontinued after and as a direct result of this incident. At the time of the incident, Adams and Scanlon had a good faith belief that it was a form of professional courtesy within the school, and not an act which would place one’s career in jeopardy. Time-out was initiated by the teacher having difficulty with a particular student. She would take or send the disruptive student to a fellow teacher who would use his own discretion in returning the child to a compliant mode. Sometimes, the mere act of sending the child to another teacher was sufficient to inspire contrition. Sometimes it wasn't. Sometimes a child would join the time-out teacher's classroom. Sometimes the child would be taken to a private area and given a stern lecture. Miguel, due to his learning disabilities and in particular his extremely poor communication skills, was not a good candidate to respond positively to a stern lecture. Rather, it was frightening to him, particularly when delivered by two adult male teachers previously unknown to him. Adams, on the other hand, had good results in the past with students referred to him for time-out. Adams was experienced in administering time-outs for fellow teachers, and the record reflects no complaints about either Respondent's techniques with reference to their handling of time-outs. Adams and Scanlon had no knowledge of Miguel’s limitations and special circumstances on November 14, 2000, when one of Miguel’s teachers, Leah Gilliard (Gilliard), was angry at Miguel for “helping” to collect books without permission. Gilliard delivered Miguel to Adams, who in turn sought the assistance of his colleague Scanlon. Miguel’s time-out ended in a student bathroom, where Respondents used language and metaphors which may have been effective with a third grader of average communication skills, but which served only to frighten Miguel. In particular, Scanlon asked Miguel why he wanted to throw his life away and if he wanted to flush everything down the toilet. Asked by Scanlon questions to the effect of why he was throwing his education away like he was flushing it down the toilet, Miguel started laughing. It may well be that Miguel laughed out of fear, or confusion, but Scanlon and Adams perceived disrespect. Rather than switch metaphors, Adams took Miguel to a child-size toilet stall and said “This is your life going down the drain if you don't get serious about education.” As he said this, he flushed the toilet with his foot. Miguel was sufficiently chastened to obey Adams' direction to apologize to Scanlon for having been (in Respondents' perception) rude. Miguel did not cry or exhibit other signs of distress to Respondents as they escorted him from the bathroom. Scanlon returned to his own classroom and Adams returned Miguel to Gilliard. At Adams' direction, Miguel apologized to Gilliard and the time-out ended. Miguel said nothing of the incident until later that night. At bedtime, Miguel told Gomez that “a brown man and a white man” had “put his head in the toilet.” Gomez did not take the claim seriously, and Miguel was not agitated or upset. Gomez told Miguel to go to sleep and he did so. The next morning, however, Miguel said he did not want to go to school, so his mother went to school with him. In the presence of Miguel, she first met with Gilliard, and next with teacher Millie Johnson (Johnson). Johnson, on hearing the toilet story, said to Miguel in a loud and “forceful” voice, “They didn't really do that, did they?” Miguel answered, “They almost.” Adams was summoned, and admitted to having had Miguel in his custody for time-out, but not to any type of physical abuse. By this time, Miguel had told at least three adults, his mother, Gilliard, and Johnson, that he, Adams, Scanlon, and a flushing toilet were all in proximity to one another while Miguel was being sternly double-teamed on the subject of his behavior—-a fact which Adams and Scanlon do not dispute. Dissatisfied with Adams’ explanation, an angry Gomez left an upset Miguel behind at school to be cared for by teachers, administrators, and counselors who were busy with their regular work. As the day progressed, Miguel was required to tell his story to no fewer than four more teachers and administrators. Miguel began to add substantially and horrifically to the story he had told his mother the night before. Meanwhile, Adams and Scanlon were immediately transferred out of Chapman and assigned to a district office. At different times and places, Miguel has claimed that Adams kicked walls and slammed doors; that Scanlon threatened to cut off his tongue and his fingers; that Adams threatened to cut out his tongue and teeth; and that Adams pushed his head just inside the rim of the toilet seat, near the water, and asked, “Do you want to drown?” In addition, Miguel has claimed that both teachers took him to a stairwell where Adams told Miguel that he would drop him down the stairs, pull out his teeth, and do "something" to him if he told his mother. Miguel's story has grown to include allegations that one or both teachers made him stand on one foot and pretended to push him down the stairs. It is also alleged that Adams made him run up and down the stairs chasing an unidentified boy that they had picked up on their way to the stairs. For reasons not reflected in the record, a couple of days after the incident, Miguel's mother's live-in companion came to the school office screaming, “How could teachers do this!” For several days following his mother's visit to Chapman, Miguel was agitated and did not want to go to his homeroom. The record is unclear as to whether his agitation was the product of the November 14th incident, or adult reaction to it as horrific details were added, or being simply overwhelmed by the attention. Soon after the incident, Miguel was administratively promoted to a third grade homeroom. He continues to be enrolled at Chapman. Gomez retained an attorney to pursue a civil action on Miguel's behalf. At the time of the final hearing in this case, the incident which occurred on November 14 is in active litigation and requires a significant amount of Miguel's time. He is fearful of failing this year because he is missing a lot of school due to the legal proceedings. Gomez and her lawyer sought and received publicity for their claims against Petitioner. In seeking media coverage they knowingly and voluntarily made Miguel's identity a matter of public notoriety for purposes of influencing the outcome of the litigation. Because Petitioner's case rests entirely upon Miguel's claims that he was subjected to criminal conduct far beyond the time-out described by Adams and Scanlon, the undersigned paid careful attention to his demeanor under oath. Miguel attended a significant portion of the final hearing accompanied by his mother and his lawyer, and listened again to teachers' accounts of what he had allegedly told them about the incident. Miguel's time on the witness stand was prolonged because he had significant difficulty understanding questions and even more difficulty in recalling and recounting facts crucial to the allegations against Respondents. On several occasions his attempted answers were simply unintelligible. Miguel's family, by virtue of its lawsuit against Petitioner, had an obvious financial stake in telling as horrifying a tale as possible. Similarly, Adams and Scanlon, whose careers and livelihoods are at stake, are motivated to downplay the extent of their efforts to intimidate Miguel into improving his behavior. The undersigned, therefore, carefully observed Respondents' demeanor as they testified. The testimony of the Respondents and of Miguel, when evaluated in the context of the entire record, reveals that Petitioner has failed to establish that Miguel was abused in the manner described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Rather, the version of the incident recounted by Adams and Scanlon is far closer to the truth. The Petitioner's allegations are utterly inconsistent with any evidence presented about the character and professional career of Adams and Scanlon. In addition, they are so horrific that one would expect that a child who had suffered such treatment would be far more traumatized than the cheerful, if intimidated, little boy who testified at the final hearing. The undersigned attaches particular significance to Gomez' claim at the final hearing that on the night of the incident, Miguel reported to her most, if not all, of the abuse allegations against Adams and Scanlon. Yet, all of Petitioner's witnesses agree that when Gomez confronted Adams and school authorities the following day, she said nothing of the alleged threats of violence and death made against her son. Gomez claims she did not mention the abuse allegations the next day because she deemed them unimportant when measured against the fact that--taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioner--Miguel's head had been placed near, but not in, the toilet water. The undersigned rejects Gomez' testimony that Miguel in fact claimed, on the night of November 14th, that he had been subjected to violence, physical abuse, and death threats. Not only did Gomez fail to mention these most serious charges to any of the teachers or administrators, she never mentioned them to school police. It is also significant that the day after the incident, Miguel did not suggest to anyone that any other children were present on the stairs. It was not until his deposition was taken in May 2001, that Miguel stated that another little boy was on the stairs and that the “Brown man” pulled the little boy from class and made both of them run up and down stairs. There is no corroborating evidence that this child exists, or this incident took place on November 14th nor at any other time. Neither is there any corroboration of any kind for Miguel's testimony that several children were in the bathroom at one time or other during the course of the incident and each of these children was ordered out by Adams or Scanlon. Such witnesses, if they existed, would be of obvious value in providing disinterested testimony as to, at a minimum, the demeanor of the Respondents during the incident. Being kicked out of a bathroom by a teacher is not a daily occurrence. Had multiple children been subjected to this unusual behavior by two teachers who were preparing to or were in the process of abusing a second grader, it should not have been difficult to identify them 24 hours later. Petitioner attempted to corroborate Miguel's testimony through a school psychologist, Diane Cotter (Cotter). She opined that the alleged abuse actually occurred. Cotter has no personal knowledge of the incident, does not treat Miguel, and has no credentials in forensic psychology. With deference to the witness, the undersigned disagrees with her opinion as to Miguel's reliability. The record as a whole establishes that Miguel's story grew in direct response to the attention and reinforcement he was receiving as the flushing toilet story was embellished with allegations of criminal child abuse. Petitioner, at its duly-noticed meeting of March 14, 2001, took action to suspend Adams and Scanlon without pay and to initiate dismissal proceedings against them pursuant to Sections 230.23(5)(f) and 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order reinstating Gregory Adams and Brett T. Scanlon with back pay. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2001, 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 26th day of October, 2001.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that he used inappropriate language when talking to students, in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Woodard has worked in the Duval County public school system since 2002. There was no evidence presented of any prior incidents of inappropriate behavior, or of discipline being imposed upon Woodard by the School Board. During the 2014-2015 school year, Woodard was employed by Petitioner as an In-School Suspension (“ISSP”) teacher at Northwestern. The ISSP teacher is an instructional and leadership position, and the ISSP teacher is supposed to set an example for students and help them modify their behavior. The ISSP class was created to allow students who engage in disciplinary misconduct to remain in school rather than being removed from the classroom environment. The referral of students to ISSP can come from administrators, teachers, or any other employee who observes student misconduct. Although Woodard taught the ISSP class, he did not discipline students or assign them to ISSP, and he did not give students grades. During the 2014-2015 school year at Northwestern, Woodard was assigned to the gym in the mornings, where sixth- graders were directed to go after eating breakfast in the cafeteria, to wait for their teachers to pick them up and take them to class. On January 23, 2014, the Duval County School District’s (“District”) Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation of allegations that Woodard used inappropriate communications with and/or in the presence of students. The investigation, which was conducted by Investigator Reginald Johnson in the District’s Office of Professional Standards, sustained the allegations. On September 29, 2015, Woodard received a Step III Progressive Discipline – Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (Revised 9/29/15) for conduct the District alleged violated the Florida Code of Ethics, rules 6A-10.080(2) and 6A-10.080(3) and the Principles of Professional Conduct, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). The Step III Progressive Discipline alleged that Woodard used the term D.A.N. or DAN when talking to or referring to students at Northwestern, which the District alleged was an acronym for “dumb ass niggers.” In his defense, Woodard testified that in mentoring students, he shared stories from his childhood and his own life in order to be more relatable to students. According to Woodard, he used the story of his childhood friend Dan to impress upon students that it is not where you start, it is where you end up. Woodard’s friend Dan used to skip school, get to school late, fight, and disrespect authority, and Woodard urged his students not to be a Dan. As discussed below, Woodard’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Student D.M. testified that Woodard called students D.A.N.s in the gym and in ISSP class when the students were either acting up or in trouble. D.M. also testified Woodard wrote the word D.A.N. on the board in ISSP class with periods in the word, and the word stayed on the board in ISSP class. D.M. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. Student H.N.J. was in ISSP class with about seven other students when Woodard told them that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. said Woodard called students D.A.N.s when they were acting up and disrespectful, and that Woodard gave two meanings of the word D.A.N.-–“dumb and nobody” and “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. does not remember Woodard relating a story about a friend named Dan. Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward students made H.N.J. feel put down and “sad and mad at the same time,” and the fact that Woodard was a teacher made this worse. Student B.S. stated Woodard yelled at students and called them D.A.N.s in the gym whenever they were talking loud or would not listen. B.S. does not recall Woodard telling a story about a friend named Dan. B.S. learned that D.A.N. means “dumb ass niggers” from A.W., another student. Woodard’s reference to students as D.A.N.s made B.S. feel “sorry and mad,” and she began crying on the witness stand. Student K.H. testified that Woodard called her a D.A.N. when she stepped out of line in the gym and that he called other students D.A.N.s when they were misbehaving, fighting, or being loud. K.H.’s friend told her that D.A.N. means “dumb ass nigger.” K.H. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. K.H. and her brother, student D.H., complained to their mother about Woodard calling students D.A.N.s. The mother of K.H. and D.H. contacted Northwestern and later the media after the school did not do anything about the complaint. Woodard’s use of the term D.A.N. made K.H. “feel disrespected and low life because it’s not supposed to be used towards children” and because Woodard is a teacher and the same race as K.H. During the 2014-2015 school year, student D.H., was in the seventh grade at Northwestern. D.H. heard his friends in math class calling each other D.A.N.s. So he asked one of his friends what D.A.N. meant. D.H.’s friend (a student named “J”) told D.H. that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers” and that Woodard called kids that word. D.H. was bothered that someone of his own race was calling him that, and also that it came from a teacher. The students’ descriptions of Woodard’s comments and behavior were fairly consistent. The things they reported hearing and observing were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The testimony of H.N.J. was particularly persuasive and clearly established that Woodard intended to use the term D.A.N. as a derogatory epithet: either “dumb and nobody”; or “dumb ass niggers.” Significantly, none of the students who appeared at hearing would have had a motive to testify falsely. As noted, Woodard did not assign grades to any of these students or assign them to ISSP, so none would have had an axe to grind with Woodard. The testimony of the students is credible. Teacher Linda Raggins testified that she heard Woodard tell students in the gym “to not act like Dan.” Toward the end of the school year, Raggins asked Woodard “who is Dan?” Woodard gave Raggins two explanations, the first of which she did not recall. The second explanation Woodard gave Raggins was that “some people use Dan to mean dumb ass niggers, but that’s not how I – that’s not what I’m talking about.” Raggins did not recall Woodard providing any other meaning for the word D.A.N. Raggins is a union representative and first agreed to provide a written statement, but then declined to provide a statement on the advice of counsel. Raggins did not tell Investigator Johnson that Woodard told a story about someone named Dan. Former teacher Jason Ludban heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. a handful of times. Ludban said that Woodard used the term D.A.N. “openly and loudly for all to hear,” which made Ludban believe it was acceptable. Ludban learned from a student that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” Ludban never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. If Ludban believed that Woodard was using the term D.A.N. to mean “dumb ass niggers,” Ludban would have had a duty to report it. Woodard gave Investigator Johnson the names of three additional student witnesses, whom Johnson interviewed. One of the students confirmed that Woodard wrote the word “D.A.N.” with periods on the board in ISSP class. Two of the students told Johnson that Woodard told them the story of a friend named Dan, but this occurred about two weeks prior to the date Johnson interviewed them, after the allegations were reported in the media and when Woodard was already facing discipline. Despite Woodard’s claim that Dan was a real person, Investigator Johnson does not recall Woodard telling him the last name of Dan or giving him any contact information for “Dan.” Johnson would have interviewed Dan if Woodard had provided that information. Woodard also did not provide Investigator Johnson with the names of any adults at Northwestern to whom Woodard told the Dan story. None of the witnesses Investigator Johnson interviewed--students or adults-- stated that Woodard told them a story about a friend named Dan. It is within management’s discretion to skip a step of progressive discipline if the conduct is severe. Assistant Superintendent Sonita Young recommended Step III discipline against Woodard because he was in a position of authority and his role was to provide support to students in terms of behavior modification, but Woodard used derogatory language that was offensive toward students. In deciding whether discipline is warranted, the District looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the number of times an incident occurred, how many witnesses there were to the incident, the severity of the incident, whether harm occurred to the child’s physical or mental well-being, whether the employee has been previously disciplined for the same conduct, and whether the employee acknowledged his behavior and is willing to modify his behavior. According to Assistant Superintendent Young, the factors supporting the Step III discipline were that Woodard said the derogatory word D.A.N. to multiple students, the students were middle school students, the student population was fragile and of very low socioeconomic status, and the conduct was repeated over a period of time rather than a singular incident. The fact that this language was used by a teacher, a person in a position of authority whom students have the right to feel “safe” around, were additional factors supporting the discipline. Young believes that Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward or around students showed poor judgment and was damaging to them. Respondent called various character and fact witnesses (Jasmine Daniels, Tiffany Thomas, Tabitha Johnson, Pastor Fredrick Newbill, Niger Lambey, Ricky Stanford, and Daniel Drayton) who testified that Woodard told the story of his friend Dan at a church youth group, in his sermons, or that they knew the story from growing up with Woodard. However, none of the witnesses testified that they heard Woodard tell the Dan story to District students or in a District classroom. Pastor Newbill testified that in his community, D.A.N. has been used as a racial epithet for “dumb ass niggers” for at least the last 25 years. Dr. Arvin Johnson, the former principal of Northwestern, received a complaint about Woodard from a parent in May 2015, near the end of the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Johnson, who is a friend of Woodard, heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. with students once or twice, but he never heard Woodard tell students a story about a friend named Dan. Although Dr. Johnson has known or worked with Woodard for approximately 12 years, the first time Woodard told Dr. Johnson the story of a friend named Dan was in connection with the parent’s complaint against Woodard in May 2015. Although Woodard has been employed with the District since 2002, he admitted that he did not tell the Dan story to students during the first 12 years of his employment. Woodard did not begin telling the Dan story to District students until the 2014-2015 school year. After not speaking to Daniel Drayton for several years, Woodard called Drayton in 2015 to remind him of the Dan story. Woodard stated that if he knew there was a negative interpretation of D.A.N. he would not have used the term, but his explanation to Ms. Raggins shows that he knew that a racially derogatory meaning of the word D.A.N. existed. Woodard claims that the students lied about him using D.A.N. as an acronym for “dumb ass niggers,” but he could not offer an explanation as to why students, whom he claims “loved” him, and were excited to attend his class, would lie about him. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Woodard used the term D.A.N. in the presence of his ISSP students as a derogatory racial epithet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its suspension of the employment of Ernest Woodard and, instead, issuing a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Respondent on February 11, 1985. Petitioner was employed as a wet mill laborer at Respondent's Florida Plant located in Bradford County, Florida. Petitioner's primary duties consisted of washing spirals and performing general housekeeping. Petitioner, like all newly hired employees, was hired subject to a ninety (90) day probationary period. Petitioner was provided an orientation period, given training, and was informed verbally during his employment about the importance of good job performance during his probation period. Petitioner was terminated by Respondent on April 1, 1985 during Petitioner's probationary period. Petitioner reported to four (4) first-line supervisors during his short period of employment which was the result of Petitioner being primarily on the day shift while the supervisors worked on a rotating shift basis. Petitioner's supervisors and the dates under each supervisor are as follows: C. A. Baldree during the weeks ending February 17, 1985 and March 17, 1985; J. W. Sherrill during the weeks ending February 24, 1985 and March 31, 1985; D. W. Baldree during the weeks ending March 3, 1985 and March 24, 1985 and; W. J. Frick during the week ending March 10, 1985. Although Petitioner's testimony conflicted with all three (3) first- line supervisors who testified concerning the fact surrounding the incidents which eventually gave rise to Petitioner's termination, the more credible evidence shows: During the week ending March 17, 1985, Supervisor C. A. Baldree instructed Petitioner and another employee to clean handrails in a specific area where a management visitation group would be observing. Petitioner proceeded to clean handrails in an area other than the one specified by the supervisor and when the supervisor attempted to advise Petitioner of his failure to follow instructions, Petitioner became abusive toward the supervisor and argued that he was following instructions. The Area Supervisor Gilberto Valazquez observed the incident and tried to resolve the matter with a meeting between Petitioner and Supervisor C. A. Baldree but Petitioner declined, commenting that he was afraid of losing his job. During the week ending March 24, 1985, Supervisor D. W. Baldree assigned Petitioner and another employee to wash some spirals in a specific area where visiting management would be observing. Again, Petitioner took it upon himself to clean spirals in a different area and when the supervisor attempted to advise Petitioner of his failure to follow instructions, Petitioner responded that he felt that where he had started was as good as any place to start, notwithstanding that Petitioner was aware of the reason for starting where the supervisor had instructed him to start cleaning. Also, during the week ending March 24, 1985, Supervisor D. W. Baldree repeatedly instructed Petitioner concerning the replacement of hoses and cutters that may be disconnected during the washing of the spirals. However, on several occasions Petitioner failed to replace the hoses and cutters that were disconnected during the washing process as instructed. During the week ending March 31, 1985, Supervisor J. W. Sherrill instructed Petitioner to clean out a tail box that was plugged with sand and adversely affecting production. When the supervisor returned in approximately 20-30 minutes he found the tail box still plugged. When the supervisor attempted to inform Petitioner of his failure to unplug the tail box, Petitioner became argumentative and pointed out that he had unplugged the tail box and that it was only water from a clear water hose that was dripping, notwithstanding the fact that a large amount of sand had accumulated and that muddy water rather than clean water was running from the tail box. At the end of the work week ending March 31, 1985, Supervisor Valazquez met with Petitioner and Supervisor Sherrill concerning an alleged promise made by Supervisor Sherrill to allow Petitioner to leave work early which Petitioner felt Supervisor Sherrill had reneged on, notwithstanding that supervisor had explained to Petitioner why he could not leave early. During the course of the discussion, Petitioner became very belligerent towards Supervisor Sherrill which prompted Supervisor Valazquez to review Petitioner's overall employment record to determine whether Petitioner should continue in the employment of Respondent. Supervisor Valazquez, in investigating Petitioner's overall performance, discussed Petitioner's employment record with all of Petitioner's first-line supervisors and also asked each of them for written comments. Based upon his own observations of Petitioner's job performance and his attitude toward supervision, the supervisors' comments, and the fact that as a short service probationary employee Petitioner was making no effort to improve his job performance or his attitude toward supervision, Supervisor Valazquez felt that Petitioner may not be salvageable as an employee and questioned Petitioner's continued employment with Respondent. Supervisor Valazquez reviewed Petitioner's performance record with his superiors and the site's Employee Relations Supervisor L. H. Wood, who was the site's Affirmative Action Officer. Wood found no evidence of discriminatory motivation. Valazquez's superiors concurred in the discharge recommendation. On April 1, 1985, Valazquez met with Petitioner to discuss the potential discharge action but approached the meeting with the view that should Petitioner show a change in his attitude in regard to his job performance and in accepting supervision, then Valazquez would change his mind and give the Petitioner another chance. When Valazquez attempted to review Petitioner's poor job performance and attitude problems with Petitioner, Petitioner again became very defensive and argumentative. As a result of Petitioner's attitude in this meeting, Valazquez proceeded with the discharge action that had been approved by management. Although the record reflects that Petitioner did not receive any written or verbal warnings from any of his shift- supervisors that his performance was so unsatisfactory that if improvement was not made he would be terminated, Petitioner was made aware, by his shift-supervisors and area supervisor that poor job performance was a basis for termination, particularly during his probationary period. There was at least one (1) occasion, the incident which occurred during the week ending February 17, 1985 with C. A. Baldree, where Petitioner commented about the possibility of losing his job and Valazquez advised him that he would not lose his job so long as he performed properly and showed respect for his supervisors. On three (3) other occasions, his supervisors made the Petitioner aware of his poor job performance and poor attitude. Petitioner was not advised of any written memorandums concerning his job performance or possible termination had been prepared until April 1, 1985, the date Petitioner had a conference with Valazquez and, due to his defensive and argumentative attitude, was not allowed further opportunity to improve his job performance or his attitude and was terminated. No formal employee/supervisor conferences were held with Petitioner until April 1, 985, the date Petitioner was terminated. On the same date that Petitioner was hired, Robert McGee, a white male, was hired by Respondent as a laborer. McGee was assigned to a field laborer position, reporting almost exclusively to one (1) supervisor, Doris Cole. Field laborers work in an area separate and apart from the wet mill and report to different first-line supervisors than the wet mill laborers. On April 25, 1985, within McGee's probationary period, McGee received a formal employee/supervisor conference concerning his unsatisfactory job performance and his damaging of company equipment, warned that definite improvement in his job performance was expected or probation or possibly termination could be expected. On July 3, 1985, McGee received another employee/supervisor conference which involved McGee, Doris Cole and Valazquez and McGee was informed that his performance had improved slightly but significant improvement was expected in the next two (2) weeks or he could expect termination. McGee was placed on probation at this time. On August 2, 1985, another formal employee/supervisor conference was held with McGee wherein it was noted that McGee had demonstrated that- he could perform at a satisfactory level but that continued improvement was expected and that McGee would remain on probation until October 3, 1985. The final employee/supervisor conference record dated October 4, 1985 concluded that McGee could not consistently perform satisfactorily, therefore termination was recommended. McGee did not attend this conference but resigned by telephone on that date in lieu of being terminated. McGee reviewed each of the employee/supervisor conference reports with the exception of the one on October 4, 1985 and each of the reports were included in his personnel file, including the one for October 4, 1985. McGee was a marginal employee who tried to perform his job properly and was receptive to constructive criticism; however, he was unable to improve his performance to a point that was acceptable to Respondent's management. McGee worked on the wet mill for brief periods without incident. McGee had no history of refusing to follow instructions of his supervisor or of being argumentative with the supervisors. The Respondent had no stated policy that required written warnings of poor job performance to employees by their respective supervisors. It was the general policy of the -shift supervisors that during the probationary period, especially during the early part of the probationary period, warnings of poor job performance were given verbally to the employee and that a formal employee/supervisor conference was reserved for more severe matters such as violation of safety rules. However, the manner in which a supervisor handled a particular warning of poor job performance during an employee's probationary period was left to the discretion of the individual supervisor. The record reflects only two (2) other incidents where an employee/supervisor conference was held with an employee during the employee's initial probationary period: Kathy D. Sanders, a black female, on June 5, 1985 and; Bernard Brown, a black male, on March 27, 1984. C. A. Baldree, D. W. Baldree and J. W. Sherrill, three (3) of Petitioner's shift supervisors, were all white as were the supervisors of McGee. Respondent has, and had during Petitioner's employment, an aggressive Affirmative Action program which applied to all aspects of the employment environment. Respondent has in the past received national and local recognition for its Affirmative Action efforts. Respondent's employment of minorities has exceeded the availability of minorities in the labor supply area. Although the local availability of minorities was fifteen percent (15 percent), twenty to twenty-one percent (20-21 percent) of employees at the site were minorities. Of the forty three (43) individuals hired, closely related in time to Petitioner's dates of employment, ten (10) or twenty-three percent (23 percent) were black. Although at the time of Petitioner's initial employment, Respondent had some misgivings about Petitioner's failure to disclose certain information on his employment application, Respondent decided to hire Petitioner anyway because of its Affirmative Action efforts and Petitioner's tests results. The clear weight of the evidence shows that Respondent's reasons for discharging Petitioner was his poor job performance and his argumentative and abusive behavior towards the supervisors when instructed to correct a situation where Petitioner had failed to follow instructions, either intentionally or because he had misunderstood the instructions. The clear weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was treated in a dissimilar manner from the white employee, but the disparity of treatment resulted from a dissimilar attitude toward job performance and supervision rather than racial motivation. Area Supervisor Valazquez, the supervisor primarily involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner, is Hispanic.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Milton Baker, was not discharged due to his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), and that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3623 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 4. The second sentence rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 6.(a-c) Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 (a-d) but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 through 9 and 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 13, 14 and 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondent had no Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(a) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(b) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(c) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(d) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Facts 17 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11 and 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. MacLennan, Esquire Kattman, Eshelman & MacLennan 1920 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Jerry H. Brenner, Esquire Legal Department E. I. du Point de Nemours and Company 100 West 10th Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her sex and/or in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's business provides consulting and technical-services management on a contract basis. Specifically, the business involves performing environmental consulting, engineering, remediation/construction, and information technology services to both private and public entities throughout the country. Petitioner began working for Respondent in February 1998 as a receptionist and administrative assistant in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Her duties included answering the phones, processing mail, filing, creating, and revising reports. Petitioner's job description also included providing administrative support to the engineers, scientists, project managers, and geologists in the office. Initially, Petitioner worked under the direction of Sam Patterson, Respondent's division director. After Mr. Patterson resigned, Sam Pratt became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. On or about March 24, 1998, Respondent evaluated Petitioner's work performance. The evaluation indicates that Petitioner was outstanding in the following expected behavior and performance areas: (a) knowledge; (b) initiative/problem solving; and (c) relations with others. Petitioner received an excellent rating in all other performance areas, including the following: (a) communication/marketing ability; (b) quality of work; (c) dependability; and (d) adaptability/professional development. Respondent paid for Petitioner to attend computer courses. Petitioner completed the following courses on the following dates: (a) April 29, 1998, Beginning Power Point; (b) September 19, 1998, Beginning Excel; (c) January 7, 1999, Beginning Word; (d) March 25, 1999, Intermediate Excel; (e) April 9, 1999, Intermediate Word 97; and (f) April 27, 1999, Advanced Excel. Mr. Pratt evaluated Petitioner's job performance on March 11, 1999. He found that Petitioner met the expected behavior and performance requirements in all areas. Mr. Pratt listed her strengths as follows: (a) has good relationship with clients; (b) works long hours to meet deadlines; (c) has excellent knowledge of company resources and corporate information; and (d) has detailed filing system that allows for tracking data. Mr. Pratt listed her weaknesses as follows: (a) has failed to contact office when unavailable to work due to family illness; (b) lacks computer skills necessary for a project assistant; (c) fails to perform a complete review of her own work; and (d) takes constructive criticism too personally. There were no areas in which Petitioner failed or exceeded her job requirements. In July 1999, Gregg Roof became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. Mr. Roof experienced problems with Petitioner's job performance, finding that she had difficulty completing simple tasks, such as copying, without making errors. Merve Dale was a geologist who worked for Respondent. Mr. Dale worked part-time in the field and part-time in Respondent's Jacksonville office. Petitioner found Mr. Dale's behavior offensive on several occasions. In June 1999, Mr. Dale told Petitioner that he could not smell the toxic odor in the warehouse but he could smell her perfume, which made him want to jump her. Petitioner ignored Mr. Dale and did not immediately report this statement to Mr. Roof. Mr. Dale sent Petitioner an e-mail from his home on August 19, 1999. The message stated, "I have sent myself a test message and I thought of you, so here is another test to see if my e-mail works from home. Have a wonderful day." Petitioner responded electronically that she had received the message. Petitioner then called Richard May, Respondent's senior regional manager in the Tallahassee, Florida, office. Petitioner told Mr. May that she was not happy about the content of the e-mail message or the fact that it was sent from Mr. Dale's home at 6:00 a.m. She also informed Mr. May about Mr. Dale's prior comment about smelling her perfume. However, Petitioner did not want Mr. May to take any action against Mr. Dale. She specifically stated that she did not want to file a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policy. She wanted to deal with the situation herself. Later that same day, Mr. Dale called the office from the field to ask Petitioner to have lunch with him. Petitioner declined the offer, stating that she usually worked through the lunch hour. Petitioner did not report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May immediately. In the afternoon, Mr. Dale asked Petitioner what he was going to get in return for giving her charge numbers for her timecard. Petitioner responded that the question was what he would not get, which was a hard time. When Mr. Dale indicated that it was not a fair exchange, Petitioner replied, "That's the way it is." Mr. Dale then gave Petitioner the information she needed for her timecard. Petitioner did not immediately report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May. On August 20, 1999, Mr. Dale was with Petitioner when another geologist asked her if she was wearing a new outfit because she really looked sharp. Petitioner laughed and responded negatively, stating that she was finally losing weight and able to wear some old clothes. At that point, Mr. Dale stated, "I told her she was really looking hot and she better watch out." Mr. Dale then reached out with a roll of drawings, five feet in length, and slapped Petitioner on her backside. Petitioner immediately told Mr. Dale to behave himself. In a letter to Mr. Dale dated August 24, 1999, Petitioner recounted the above-referenced incidents and demanded an apology. The letter specifically informed Mr. Dale that his actions were unwanted and offensive. Petitioner furnished Mr. Roof with a copy of the letter. Mr. Roof and Petitioner also shared her concerns with Mr. May. Mr. Roof subsequently counseled with Mr. Dale and Petitioner. During the meeting with Mr. Roof on August 25, 2000, Petitioner rejected Mr. Dale's apology. Mr. Roof then proceeded to admonish Mr. Dale, warning him that his behavior towards Petitioner was inappropriate. Petitioner did not request Mr. Roof or Mr. May to take any further action against Mr. Dale even though she knew she could have filed a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's policies and procedures. On February 18, 2000, Petitioner happened to be alone in the office with Mr. Dale. She was helping him label samples for shipment to a laboratory when Mr. Dale handed Petitioner a doctor's business card. Mr. Dale stated that he found the card on the sidewalk in front of the office entrance and wondered if it might belong to Petitioner. Other than giving Petitioner the business card, Mr. Dale did not say or do anything to Petitioner. Petitioner concedes that it was customary for staff to give found items to her as the office receptionist. However, the business card made Petitioner feel uncomfortable because it listed the name of a gynecologist who specialized in reproductive endocrinology, infertility, pelvic reconstructive surgery, and gynecology. Petitioner kept the business card and faxed a copy of it to Mr. May in Tallahassee. When she called Mr. May, he said he would talk to Mr. Dale. Mr. May was extremely supportive of Petitioner and took her complaints regarding the card seriously. Petitioner requested Mr. May to report the incident to Faye Thompson, Respondent's director of Human Resources. This was the first time that Petitioner had made such a request. During the telephone conversation, Mr. May asked Petitioner if she wanted to transfer to the Tallahassee office so that he could protect her. Mr. May and Petitioner had previously discussed such a transfer because some of her duties were regional in nature. Petitioner responded that she would think about it. In an e-mail dated February 22, 2000, Mr. May asked Petitioner to plan a luncheon for Ms. Thompson and other employees who would attend a project manager's seminar at the Jacksonville office. Petitioner responded that she would be happy to prepare the meal and other refreshments for the seminar. On February 23, 2000, in anticipation of the seminar, Petitioner asked Mr. Roof if he was going to have the warehouse cleaned over the weekend. He responded negatively because the staff had already worked long hours. Petitioner then stated that she would work on the weekend to organize the files and certain areas of the warehouse. Mr. Roof again responded negatively, explaining that he did not want to pay overtime. When Petitioner continued to insist on cleaning the office for the dignitaries, she and Mr. Roof had a verbal exchange in front of other staff. Petitioner followed Mr. Roof into his office. She then asked him what she should do with the extra electronic equipment stored in the cubicles. When Mr. Roof told her to throw it in the dumpster, Petitioner refused and began to question him about the company's policy for disposing of excess equipment. Next, Mr. Roof closed his office door and began to explain that he was tired of having to tell Petitioner things multiple times and that he did not want her to clean the office. Although Mr. Roof inappropriately raised his voice in talking to Petitioner, there is no persuasive evidence that he blocked her exit from the office after Petitioner requested him to move. Mr. Roof lost his temper with Petitioner, but he was not retaliating against her because she accused Mr. Dale of sexual harassment. Instead, Mr. Roof was frustrated because Petitioner would not follow his directions. Before the day was over, Mr. Roof and Petitioner had a civil discussion about the incident. Petitioner was upset about Mr. Roof's behavior. She subsequently expressed her feelings to Mr. May in a telephone call. On February 29, 2000, Ms. Thompson was in the Jacksonville office for the project manager's meeting. After the meeting, Ms. Thompson spoke to Petitioner about her sexual discrimination claim. During the conversation, Petitioner gave Ms. Thompson a copy of the August 24, 1999, letter to Mr. Dale and a copy of the business card. On or about March 1, 2000, Mr. May met with Mr. Roof and Petitioner to complete Petitioner's work evaluation. During the meeting, Mr. May counseled Petitioner and Mr. Roof. Mr. Roof again apologized to Petitioner for his losing his temper on February 23, 2000. The written evaluation indicates that Petitioner did not meet her job requirements in the following areas: (a) decision making; (b) reliability; and (c) quality and quantity of work. According to the evaluation, Petitioner met her job requirements in the following areas: (a) knowledge of job; (b) interpersonal and communication skills; and (c) professional development. The only area that Petitioner exceeded job requirements was in safety. The performance evaluation correctly reflected several areas in which Petitioner had a positive influence in the office. Some examples of her contributions include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Petitioner successfully coordinated health and safety training for Respondent's offices in Florida; (b) Petitioner was an excellent person to represent Respondent when performing telephone reception duties; (c) Petitioner performed successfully as the regional human resources representative; and (d) Petitioner successfully coordinated partner meetings, including making hotel reservations and arranging for meeting rooms. The evaluation also correctly reflected Petitioner's job performance skills that required improvement. These skills included the following: (a) Petitioner had a poor attitude toward her supervisor as indicated by her failure to follow directions and her failure to understand office hierarchy; Petitioner had difficulty prioritizing her work; Petitioner often seemed overwhelmed by a minimal amount of work resulting in a disorganized desk and poorly maintained files; (d) Petitioner spent too much time in personal telephone conversations; (e) Petitioner rarely made an effort to determine when assigned work was due so that it could be completed in a timely fashion; and (f) Petitioner's word processing and spreadsheet manipulation skills were below standards required for a person in her position. Mr. May wanted all administrative personnel to work more as "project assistants," helping the professionals with the administrative tasks of particular projects. Petitioner assured Mr. Roof and Mr. May that she would make an effort to improve her performance. Soon thereafter, Ms. Thompson called to thank Petitioner for the luncheon and snacks during the project manager's meeting. Ms. Thompson also inquired whether Petitioner had thought more about transferring to the Tallahassee office. Petitioner said she would make the move if the company paid her expenses. Some time after the March 2000 evaluation, Petitioner informed Mr. May that she did not believe she could sufficiently demonstrate her skills to receive the promotion and pay raise she wanted while she worked in the Jacksonville office. Mr. May again offered Petitioner an opportunity for a fresh start in the Tallahassee office working directly for him. However, Mr. May cautioned Petitioner that her work performance had to improve if she were going to accept the offer. Mr. May agreed that Respondent would reimburse Petitioner for her relocation expenses. Petitioner moved to Tallahassee, Florida, and began working in the Tallahassee on or about May 1, 2000. In her new position, Petitioner worked as receptionist and administrative assistant. Once again her duties included providing administrative support to the professionals in the office. At all times material here, Petitioner enjoyed working for Mr. May. She does not attribute any discriminatory or harassing behavior to him. However, immediately after her transfer, Petitioner again demonstrated deficiencies in her job performance. Mr. May had hoped that Petitioner would become a "resource" for him. Instead, the opposite was true despite the additional training provided to Petitioner. Petitioner often went to Mr. May with questions regarding simple tasks that were part of her regular job duties. It did not take Mr. May long to confirm Mr. Pratt's and Mr. Roof's earlier complaints regarding deficiencies in Petitioner's performance. Mr. May began to document his observations about Petitioner's job performance. On May 8, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until 9:00 a.m. Additionally, another employee had to take the regular FedEx to the kiosk because Petitioner did not get it out on time. On May 9, 2000, Petitioner again failed to get the regular FedEx out on time. This failure was more serious because the package contained checks in the amount of $32,000. On May 10, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until after 9:00 a.m. Other staff members had to interrupt their work to sign for deliveries. Later that day, Mr. May told Petitioner that she did not have to put cover sheets on all her work. Petitioner then complained that she had to do "regional stuff" all the time. On May 19, 2000, Petitioner did not get the FedEx delivery out on time. The package had several checks in it, as well as an important communication regarding an offer of employment for a new employee. On May 22, 2000, Petitioner was not in the office by 9:15 a.m. In the meantime, Petitioner began to experience interpersonal relationship problems with members of the staff. For example, problems with Karen Harnett, Respondent's systems administrator, began soon after Petitioner made the move. The evidence indicates that Ms. Harnett was a bully who routinely picked on people. Ms. Harnett's attitude caused one employee to quit her job and caused another employee to seek help from Respondent's employee assistance program. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever condoned Ms. Harnett's behavior in retaliation for Petitioner's filing of the sexual harassment complaint. In June 2000, Ms. Harnett and two other staff members found it amusing to harass an employee who worked for VALIC, an investment firm located in Respondent's office building. The harassment resulted in a feud over parking spaces in the building's parking lot. Petitioner was aware of Ms. Harnett's inappropriate actions but did not participate in the harassment. Petitioner did not know that it was customary for Respondent's receptionist to accept deliveries for VALIC when its office was closed. One day, Petitioner refused to accept a delivery of a UPS or FedEx package for VALIC. Later, the VALIC employee stormed into Respondent's office demanding to know why Petitioner had refused the delivery. Howard Engle, one of Respondent's project managers, heard the encounter between the VALIC employee and Petitioner. He went to the front of the office to see what was going on. Jimmy Hatcher, the building's owner, later complained to Mr. May about Petitioner's refusal to accept the package. Mr. May was not in the office with the VALIC incident took place. When he returned to the office, he heard several versions about the dispute. He concluded that Petitioner's poor decision-making and reaction to the angry VALIC employee had contributed, at least in part, to undermine Respondent's positive working relationship with Respondent's neighbor. On or about June 14, 2000, Mr. May discussed the VALIC incident with Petitioner. During that conversation, Mr. May also counseled Petitioner regarding her working relationship with other employees. He advised her to pay more attention to details and to improve her technical skills. Mr. May explained to Petitioner that several of the professionals in the office avoided giving her work because they lacked confidence in her work. He encouraged her to work more cooperatively with the professionals in the office. During the conversation on June 14, 2000, Petitioner admitted that she needed to improve her computer skills. She felt that everyone was against her and that Mr. May's only option was to go ahead and fire her. Mr. May later sent Ms. Thompson a summary of his conversation with Petitioner. On June 16, 2000, Mr. Engle sent Mr. May an e-mail complaining about Petitioner's substandard performance. The message stated that Mr. Engle had resorted to doing his own copying because he could not depend on Petitioner. Additionally, she had misplaced an important laboratory report, which would not have been delivered in a timely manner if another employee had not discovered Petitioner's error. Mr. Engle also complained that Petitioner had misfiled and never shown him a time-sensitive letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding Respondent's re-certification to perform work in the state. This error could have had a calamitous impact on Respondent's business interests. In a written correspondence dated June 29, 2000, Mr. May gave Petitioner a written warning that she would be terminated if her job performance did not improve. The communication outlined specific job performance areas that required immediate and sustained improvement. As of June 29, 2000, Petitioner had misdirected incoming facsimile transmissions, failed to ensure that outgoing FedEx deliveries met the regular schedule, and sent at least one FedEx delivery to the wrong location. Competent evidence indicates that Petitioner needed to pay more attention to detail. Petitioner failed to proofread final drafts of monthly reports that she prepared. As of June 29, 2000, every such report had errors in them. Petitioner failed to focus on directions for work assignments. She often failed to return the work in the order that it was assigned. Petitioner failed to prioritize her work. She did not give project-related activities priority over day-to-day overhead issues. When Petitioner felt overwhelmed by an assignment, she was unwilling to shift gears to handle a higher priority activity. Petitioner had difficulty working the office schedule. She needed to understand that she could not work a later schedule. She also had to understand that overtime pay would not be authorized except for work directly related to client projects or for important overhead objectives. Petitioner failed to be accountable to the professional staff that depended on her administrative assistance. At times, she was unwilling to accept work assignments from staff members other than Mr. May. At times Petitioner was argumentative with her co-workers and inflexible regarding office procedures and protocols. She needed to moderate her behavior towards her co-workers. Petitioner was paid at Respondent's top pay rate for the second highest administrative support grade. She should have been serving as a resource for staff members that were not expected to have expertise in word processing. However, Petitioner's computer proficiency was at a beginners level at best. At times, Mr. May had to assist Petitioner with computer skills that she should have mastered. After receiving the written warning, Petitioner showed no improvement in her job performance or ability to work with the people in Respondent's Tallahassee office. Therefore, Mr. May terminated Petitioner's employment on July 25, 2000, for substandard work performance. Respondent's decision to fire Petitioner was based solely upon her poor performance record. It was not a result of any complaints she made against Mr. Dale the preceding year when she worked in the Jacksonville office. In making his decision to terminate Petitioner, Mr. May did not receive input from anyone in the Jacksonville office or from any other of Respondent's employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Jensen 2692 Spring Lake Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The Petitioner, Myra McKinney, is a black female. The Respondent is an insurance company which conducts operations in Florida, as pertinent hereto, consisting of the receipt of insurance policy applications with attendant premium payments, the recording of such policy applications, and other administrative procedures and operations necessary to act on the applications and receipt of premium monies by underwriting the risks involved by insurance policies issued by the company. The Respondent is an employer in the State of Florida for the purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was employed by Respondent at times pertinent hereto and from 1981 through June 2, 1992. When she was terminated she held the position of "processing manager." This position involved presiding over the department as supervisor, with the responsibility and function of receiving insurance policy applications and related binder and/or premium monies and properly accounting for them in the process leading up to the Respondent company issuing insurance policy contracts. The Petitioner was the supervisor of personnel charged with the receipt of and proper accounting for such applications and premium monies. On or about June 11, 1992, after being terminated by the Respondent on June 2, 1992, the Petitioner filed a charge of racial discrimination related to her termination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). An investigation was conducted by the Commission which ultimately resulted in the determination of "no cause." The Petitioner had been placed on work probation on May 11, 1992, because of poor work performance. The terms of her probation status specified that her work performance would have to be reviewed in 30 days and that if objectives were not met she would be terminated. The Petitioner had been asked by her manager or supervisor to provide him with reports on missing work (lost or misplaced applications), as well as a plan to correct the processing deficiencies leading to this problem and to eliminate the backlog of unprocessed applications. The Petitioner failed to provide the requested response and report until the supervisor had to make a second request of her. Witness John Burkhalter, the Petitioner's most recent supervisor, as well as witnesses Maria Diaz and Connie Bonner, established that a corporate audit revealed severe deficiencies and discrepancies in the processing department's function, which the Petitioner supervised. Under the Petitioner's management the processing department had fallen into severe disarray with a serious backlog of unprocessed work, a loss of control by Ms. McKinney over the processing of the work, particularly the problem of lost or misplaced insurance policy applications and related premium or binder checks. There were organizational and work-flow management problems, and very poor morale throughout the processing department. Ms. Diaz established that the poor morale was directly attributable to the Petitioner's performance because she had poor organizational skills. Numerous meetings were held with no apparent purpose for the meetings and little was accomplished. Meeting agendas between the Petitioner and her subordinates were lacking or rudimentary. The Petitioner had the habit of intimidating employees, being critical of them, and causing the employees to feel reluctant to express ideas and opinions clearly, particularly criticisms of the manner in which the office was operated. Once the Petitioner left employment, the backlog of unprocessed work and the problem of missing or misplaced applications was immediately alleviated, with the office functioning in much better fashion ever since. Additional missing applications and a box of "backlogged", unprocesed applications were found concealed in the office on the day of the Petitioner's termination, June 2, 1992, during the course of her work probationary period. Mr. Burkhalter established, as the immediate supervisor of the Petitioner and the regional operations officer of the Respondent company, that the Respondent had a progressive discipline policy and termination policy. The corporate policy was followed with regard to the termination of the Petitioner. The Respondent employed progressive discipline when it learned of the severity of the problems in the processing department, imposing a probationary period first, and giving the Petitioner an opportunity to correct the problems, followed by termination for work performance deficiencies when the opportunity to correct those deficiencies was not taken advantage of by the Petitioner. Ms. McKinney's actual performance in May of 1992 was not consistent with her previous performance evaluations. Her former manager, Mr. McFall, had inflated her performance ratings and given her satisfactory ratings when actually her performance did not justify such. Mr. McFall himself was terminated near the same time as the Petitioner and testified on behalf as concerning purported satisfactory performance but, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding his termination and testimony in support of the Petitioner, is deemed a biased witness against the Respondent. His testimony was colored by his own dispute and history of litigation with the Respondent concerning his employment and termination. Mr. Burkhalter reviewed the Petitioner's entire personnel file, the deficiencies in her work performance and her lack of any improvement during the work probationary period when the Respondent gave her an opportunity to improve and make corrections. He determined termination was, therefore, the only option. He reviewed such considerations as transferring the Petitioner or demoting her to another position. However, because of the exceedingly poor morale generated in the department largely by the Petitioner's management and supervisory practices, Mr. Burkhalter determined that neither option was in the best interest of the Respondent or Ms. McKinney. He, therefore, terminated Ms. McKinney in compliance with the provisions of the work probation policy of the Respondent. He did not terminate her or otherwise discipline her for any reasons motivated by consideration of her race. In establishing this as fact, his testimony is corroborated by that of Ms. Lynn Jones, a black female employee, who testified that she had never been personally discriminated against by Mr. Burkhalter or Colonial nor had she observed any other black person employed by the Respondent treated in what appeared to her to be a disparate fashion, including the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of Record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition of Myra McKinney in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted but not in itself materially dispositive of the relevant issues. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not in accordance with the totality of the preponderant, credible evidence. 8-9. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant, credible evidence of record. Rejected as not clearly established by the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as immaterial and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Accepted. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial given the issues in this proceeding. Rejected as immaterial and not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the credible evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial under the circumstances presented by the issues in this case. Rejected as immaterial under the circumstances presented by the issues in this case. Rejected as immaterial under the circumstances presented by the issues in this case. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. All accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter to the extent that they differ. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Myra McKinney 1823 Mayfair Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Lucinda A. Reynolds, Esquire McCutchan, Druen, Maynard, Rath & Dietrich One Nationwide Plaza Columbus, Ohio 43216 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents have committed an unlawful employment practice by retaliating against Petitioner for Petitioner's earlier complaint of handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been disabled since 1981, when she suffered a stroke. Petitioner was employed by Respondent Palm Beach County on September 10, 1984, as a receptionist in its Public Safety Department. Richard Walesky is the director of Palm Beach County's Department of Environmental Resources Management. The County started that Department in October of 1987, and Walesky became the Department's first director and first employee. That Department has expanded substantially since its creation, having grown to approximately 30 employees after the first year and approximately 100 employees currently. In January of 1988, Walesky hired Petitioner as a fiscal clerk in the Department of Environmental Resources Management. Petitioner was in a wheelchair at the time, and Walesky was aware that the Petitioner was handicapped. He hired her because she was qualified by experience and because she had an "upbeat" personality. Her job description included receptionist duties and answering telephones, purchasing, general bookkeeping, and reconciliation of the Department's books and records. The only accommodation requested by Petitioner was to have a rolling file cabinet on the right-hand side of her work station. With her filing cabinet in that location and her electric wheelchair, she needed no other accommodation. Initially, Walesky supervised Petitioner but turned that responsibility over to the Department's office manager in approximately 1989. In that same year, Petitioner's title changed from fiscal clerk to fiscal specialist. Initially, Walesky was not knowledgeable about fiscal procedures and therefore could not assess Petitioner's performance level. In other words, he did not know if the problems he was experiencing were normal. He did know that Petitioner was not reconciling the books as required and, therefore, neither of them knew how much of their budget had been spent and how much was still available. Further, due to the slow processing of paperwork in his Department, the County was not able to take advantage of discounts for timely payment of bills. In one year, the slow processing of paperwork by Petitioner resulted in approximately $20,000 worth of bills not being paid during the fiscal year when the money for payment was budgeted but rather being paid during the following fiscal year when money had not been budgeted to pay for those items. Reconciling the Department's books and processing the paperwork for payment of invoices were included in Petitioner's assigned duties. In spite of the seriousness of those deficiencies, Walesky and the office manager who subsequently supervised Petitioner did not give Petitioner negative annual performance evaluations. Rather, on her 1988 performance evaluation Petitioner was rated as meeting or partially exceeding job requirements, and the same rating was given to Petitioner in 1989. Petitioner's 1990 annual performance evaluation resulted in her achieving a superior rating. As the Department continued to grow, Walesky hired more staff. In October of 1990, he hired Laura Thompson as a Financial Analyst II. Thompson, who had a master's degree in financial management, was given the responsibility of general oversight of the financial aspects of the Department. That responsibility included being Petitioner's supervisor. During Thompson's first year of employment, Petitioner retained her same responsibility for purchasing and processing of invoices, and Thompson was primarily responsible for other areas. During her first year, Thompson had limited knowledge of Petitioner's work and gave Petitioner a superior rating on Petitioner's 1990-1991 performance evaluation. Yet, Thompson was aware that there were problems in Petitioner's performance. Thompson requested during her second year of employment that Walesky put her directly in charge of purchasing so she could become more familiar with the purchasing system and better deal with the problems surrounding Petitioner's job duties. Walesky agreed with that request and did so. During that year, Thompson was better able to identify Petitioner's deficiencies. At the end of that fiscal year, in September of 1992, Thompson gave Petitioner the same superior rating but in the comments section of that evaluation, Thompson specified the areas in which Petitioner needed to show improvement. Thompson discussed with her Petitioner's annual performance evaluation, with specific attention to each item noted as needing improvement. She told Petitioner to organize Petitioner's work area by labeling file cabinets and file folders, by removing from her work area paperwork which was three or four years old and placing those documents in properly marked file folders, and by placing active paperwork on her desk rather than keeping active work in her desk drawers. As to the second area needing improvement, Thompson told Petitioner to eliminate duplicate records. It had been earlier discovered that Petitioner was keeping duplicate records, that is, she was keeping her own ledgers which duplicated the County's ledgers being done by the automated system. Not only were duplicate records not needed, they were not permitted since there was a County policy that for a Department to keep duplicate records, permission must be obtained from the Budget Office, and the Department did not have that permission. Further, Thompson believed that Petitioner keeping her own ledgers consumed approximately one half of Petitioner's work time. The third area of concern was that Petitioner had not received training in the County's automated accounting and purchasing system. Knowledge of that Local Government Financial System a/k/a LGFS was imperative for an employee in Petitioner's position. Training in LGFS was available to Petitioner during working hours at her job site at the County's expense, and Thompson specifically told Petitioner that it was. Thompson offered Petitioner assistance in meeting the outlined goals in those three areas needing improvement. However, Petitioner did not need any assistance according to Petitioner. Thereafter, there was no improvement in any of those specified areas. Petitioner did, however, request that her position as a fiscal specialist be upgraded. Walesky, who had been engaging in ongoing discussions with Thompson regarding Petitioner's performance problems and Petitioner's resistance to improvement in the specified areas, referred that request for re-classification to the County's Personnel Department. He and Thompson specifically did not give any recommendation to the Personnel Department as to whether Petitioner's request should be approved or denied. The Personnel Department conducted an independent audit and determined that although Petitioner's work load had increased, her job duties had remained the same and there was no basis for re- classifying her position. Petitioner's request was denied on November 6, 1992. Due to Petitioner's failure to make the required changes in the areas specified, Thompson gave Petitioner a memorandum in December of 1992 since the numerous discussions she had had with Petitioner along the way had not been effective. That memorandum directed Petitioner to follow the Policies and Procedures Memorandum regarding the price agreements. She attached to her memorandum a copy of the referenced Memorandum. Thompson discussed with Petitioner the memorandum she issued and offered her assistance, but Petitioner did not request any assistance in carrying out the instructions contained in Thompson's memorandum to her. Thereafter, Thompson noted no improvement and issued a memorandum dated January 26, 1993, specifying problems noted by Thompson and specifying assignments given to Petitioner which Petitioner had not accomplished. The memorandum requested that Petitioner advise Thompson if there were any reasons that Petitioner could not accomplish the tasks, offered assistance in helping Petitioner attain the goals, and advised Petitioner that if she continued to fail to respond to those areas of improvement required of her, she would be issued a formal notice of reprimand for failure to perform assigned duties and/or to follow directions. Thereafter, Petitioner did not demonstrate any particular effort to make improvements in the designated areas. Her work area remained cluttered, she continued maintaining duplicate books, and she failed to obtain the required LGFS training. Thompson continued to keep Walesky advised as to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate improvement and to comply with directives. Thompson also contacted the County's Personnel Department regarding Petitioner's performance to discuss her options and the appropriate procedures. In May of 1993, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that she had been discriminated against based upon her handicap by the County's failure to re-classify her position. A determination was made on that complaint that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred, and Petitioner did not contest that determination. When Petitioner filed her complaint in May of 1993, the Commission sent notice to the County that a complaint had been filed, although a copy of the complaint itself was not forwarded to the County until July of 1993. When the notice was received by the County in May, it was forwarded to the County's Personnel Department in accordance with County policy. Walesky was advised that the notice had been received, and he immediately went to Petitioner and asked her what the problem was and what he could do to solve it. Petitioner advised Walesky that the problem was the failure to re-classify her position months earlier. Laura Thompson, however, was not advised by anyone that Petitioner had filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. She did not become aware of that complaint until the actual complaint was received by the County from the Commission in July of 1993. Thompson found out about both the existence of the complaint and the contents of the complaint in July when the County's Personnel Department requested her to respond to it. On June 8, 1993, Thompson gave Petitioner a written reprimand. That reprimand was reviewed in advance by the Personnel Department and by Walesky, who signed it without any consideration that Petitioner had filed a discrimination complaint. At the meeting wherein Petitioner was given the reprimand, Richard Morelli, the Department's office manager and Petitioner's former supervisor, was present at Thompson's request. The reprimand was for failure to perform assigned duties and to follow instructions. Thompson discussed the reprimand with Petitioner and then requested that Petitioner sign it. Petitioner did so and left it on Thompson's desk. Thompson saw that Petitioner had written on the reprimand, "I believe this is retaliation". Thompson went to Petitioner and asked Petitioner what she meant by her comment. Petitioner's response to Thompson was that Petitioner did not have to tell her, and she did not tell her. Subsequent to the issuance of the reprimand, Petitioner exhibited no significant improvement in her performance. Petitioner's work area did become more organized because Thompson personally organized Petitioner's files for her and cleaned out approximately 50 percent of Petitioner's work area. Thompson continued to discuss with Petitioner her directive that Petitioner eliminate the duplicate records Petitioner was keeping. At one point, she asked Petitioner to describe to Thompson what books she was keeping and the purpose for each specific book. Petitioner advised Thompson that she did not have time to tell her that information. Thompson instructed Petitioner that for the remaining four hours of that work day and for the entire following work day Petitioner was to do nothing else during that 12-hour time slot except prepare a description of the books she was keeping. During that 12 hours Petitioner worked on other tasks and failed to do the one task she had been instructed to do to the exclusion of all others. In September of 1993, Petitioner received an annual performance evaluation with a rating of "needs improvement". The evaluation was discussed with Petitioner by Thompson, and Petitioner recognized the importance of reaching a satisfactory level of performance to keep her job. Petitioner was given a 90-day improvement plan, with meetings scheduled with Thompson and Walesky at the 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervals. During that time period, Petitioner accepted none of the offers for extra assistance. At the end of the 90-day improvement plan, Petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient progress to reach a satisfactory level of performance. For example, she still had not obtained the LGFS training she was directed to obtain. At the end of the 90-day period Petitioner was terminated from her employment with the concurrence of Walesky, Thompson, and the County's Personnel Department. Yet, Petitioner was given an additional 30-days of paid leave time in which to obtain another job. None of the other positions located for Petitioner by the County were satisfactory to her, including the position she had held before being hired by Walesky. The County's Personnel Department employs an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action specialist, who is responsible for handling all discrimination complaints and for training managers in equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements. Shauna Ihle was hired by the County for that position in March of 1990. She met Petitioner immediately after being employed when Petitioner came to see her regarding different available positions that Petitioner was applying for or to request assistance. She received the May 1993 notice that Petitioner had filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Relations. From the time that Petitioner's request for re-classification of her position was denied on November 6, 1992, until Petitioner filed her complaint on approximately May 3, 1993, Petitioner had never discussed with Ihle any dissatisfaction or perceived discrimination regarding the County's denial of that request for re-classification. When Petitioner received her "needs improvement" performance evaluation in September of 1993, Petitioner came to Ihle to discuss that evaluation. Although Petitioner stated that the evaluation was not appropriate, as to each specific item in the evaluation Petitioner admitted to Ihle that the complaint was legitimate. Petitioner even admitted that she agreed with the reprimand that had been given to her because she was not processing paperwork correctly or following the correct procedures. Petitioner also told Ihle that some of the things Thompson wanted her to do were stupid, and Ihle advised Petitioner that she should do those things anyway. Throughout the time that Ihle counseled with Petitioner, she inquired if Petitioner had any limitations preventing her from performing her duties or if she needed any help to perform her duties. Petitioner's position was that she did not need any help and had no limitations which interfered with her job performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondents have not committed an unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed against them. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 10-12, and 16 are adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6-9, 13-15, and 17- 21 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-30, and 32-41 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 31 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne P. D'Iorio, Esquire 5301 North Federal Highway, Suite 150 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Maureen E. Cullen, Esquire County Attorney's Office of Palm Beach County 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by being allegedly retaliated against by termination from employment for purportedly making complaints concerning alleged discriminatory practices toward Hispanic employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was hired by the Escambia County Health Department (Department) the Respondent herein, as a Community Health Nursing Supervisor. It was the Petitioner's duty to supervise nursing staff under her direction and to perform their employee evaluations. She, in turn, was responsible to her supervisor, Jennifer Carter. The Petitioner maintains that she was retaliated against by the Respondent, in the employment action taken, because she complained to her supervisors concerning what she claimed was discriminatory conduct toward Hispanic employees by other employees of the Respondent. The Petitioner, for instance, made reference to an employee, Annette Thrasher, who purportedly made reference to "those people" in a meeting when referring to Hispanic people or employees. The Petitioner, however, did not make a formal complaint about that matter when offered the opportunity to do so. Maribel Reyes is a Hispanic employee. She testified that another employee, possibly employee Thrasher, criticized her as well as Esperanza Rietz, also a Hispanic employee, for speaking the Spanish language at work. Ms. Reyes and/or Ms. Rietz took a complaint about this matter to the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not act to resolve it, however, and therefore Ms. Reitz took her concerns about criticism of her speaking in Spanish to the Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Carter. The issue was then resolved quickly by Ms. Carter, who assured Ms. Rietz that she could speak any language she wished; that there was no prohibition against that. The Respondent had contended that this was one of the instances of purported discrimination against Hispanic employees which she purportedly defended against and made complaint about to the Respondent's management. In fact, the complaint had been made to her by the Hispanic employee referenced above and she had done nothing about it. In any event, the fact that the Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Carter, acted quickly to assure Ms. Reyes and indeed Ms. Rietz, that the Respondent's management did not tolerate employment conduct indicative of such discrimination, tends to belie the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent retaliated against her for making a complaint about discrimination against Hispanic employees. Rather, it was her supervisor, and the Respondent's management who acted to ensure that such potentially discriminatory conduct was not condoned. This belies any likelihood that the Respondent would have retaliated against the Petitioner for following the same policy, had she done so. When she was hired the Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Carter, instructed her to include Ms. Carter in any meetings and/or discussions with employees concerning those employees' performance evaluations, especially if the evaluations were contemplated to be negative ones. The Petitioner was still a probationary employee herself, and Ms. Carter, as her supervisor wanted to ascertain that she had followed instructions and was doing the employee performance evaluations in accordance with the Respondent's relevant personnel rules and policies. In fact, however, the Petitioner failed to follow Ms. Carter's instructions and completed a number of performance evaluations and meetings with the affected employees without informing Ms. Carter or securing her presence at those discussions. The testimony of witnesses Jessie Wilson and Jennifer Carter, established that the Petitioner gave Jessie Wilson an unfair and inaccurate employee performance evaluation. She excessively criticized and was rude toward Jessie Wilson. The Petitioner apparently made a comment somewhat to the effect that Ms. Wilson, who is white, had a "Jim Crow" attitude or an "overseer" mentality. The Petitioner was overly critical, demeaning, and rude toward employees at various times. She embarrassed and criticized Esperanza Rietz, an employee she supervised, in front of the employee's co-workers and disclosed her personal medical information improperly to Ms. Rietz's co-workers. Velda Gardner is a Health Technician in the health unit. Ms. Gardner took a long lunch period one day, taking an extra hour. She took the extra hour from administrative leave she was entitled to as "compensation time." The Petitioner wrongfully docked her the hour of administrative leave time. Ms. Gardner demonstrated to the Petitioner, with a witness, that she was entitled to the hour of administrative leave time or compensation time but the Petitioner refused to accept her truthful explanation. She effectively and wrongfully accused Ms. Gardner of lying. In addition to prompting employee Jessie Wilson to file a grievance against the Petitioner because of the untrue, inaccurate, and overly disparaging evaluation concerning Ms. Wilson's performance, the Petitioner yelled at and criticized Ms. Wilson in front of her peers. She also treated other employees in front of peers in a similar fashion at various times. Ms. Rietz worked as a Spanish language interpreter for the Respondent. The Petitioner disparaged her in front of other employees. Ms. Rietz felt demeaned by this. On another occasion the Petitioner approached a physician, Dr. Tamalo, in the hallway outside her office and commenced yelling at him and berating him in a loud, rude manner. This was overheard by witnesses Virginia Howard and Gracie Stovall, employed, respectively, in the nearby Family Planning Clinic and Family Health Clinic. According to these two witnesses, "everyone in adjoining rooms could hear it." The Petitioner behaved in a very loud, rude disparaging way to Dr. Tamalo and another physician. Jennifer Carter, as referenced above, is employed by the Family Health Clinic and is the Petitioner's supervisor. She corroborated the testimony of witness Jessie Wilson concerning the Petitioner's "Jim Crow" reference and described the above-named witnesses' and employees' complaints concerning the Petitioner's conduct towards them, corroborating the nature of their complaints. Witness Carter described Respondent's Exhibit A, which is Jessie Wilson's performance evaluation, as being in some respect harsh and demeaning, with the same sort of criticisms directed at the Respondent's Exhibit B, the performance evaluation of Tammy Buckney. These evaluations were not done in accordance with Ms. Carter's instruction. Ms. Carter, in fact, had to re-formulate and re-draft three of the six employee evaluations she received from the Petitioner because they were inaccurate, overly disparaging, and not done according to her instructions. Ms. Carter is the Assistant Community Health Nurse of the Escambia County Health Department. Ms. Carter thus corroborated the testimony of other employees that the Petitioner's treatment of staff members under her supervision was frequently rude and demeaning. Ms. Carter also corroborated the testimony of Ms. Reyes in establishing that no discrimination against Hispanic people was tolerated by the Respondent, nor to the knowledge of Ms. Carter had occurred. Dr. John Lanza is director of the Escambia County Health Department. He is the ultimate supervisor of the Petitioner as well as all other employees of the Department, including Jennifer Carter. Dr. Lanza has been with the Department of Health for 15 years. He has never heard any reports of discrimination against Hispanics or as to Ms. Rubin herself. Ms. Rubin is Black. Dr. Lanza became aware through reports of his management team, such as Dr. Susan Turner, Barbara McCullough, and Jennifer Carter of the Petitioner's disparaging, and rude treatment of employees under her supervision. He also learned that she failed to participate in her clinic duties. Dr. Lanza, as director of the health department, is authorized to dismiss Department personnel. He dismissed the Petitioner because she failed to follow her supervisor's instructions, was unacceptably rude and overly critical of employees under her supervision. She was demeaning at times toward employees and even was rude to two physicians at the Department whom she had no authority to supervise. These criticisms, which have been established as true by the preponderant evidence in this record, and the fact that all this deficient conduct occurred while the Petitioner was still in her probationary period after her hiring, motivated Dr. Lanza to dismiss the Petitioner from employment. When Dr. Lanza made this decision he was unaware of any allegation of any discrimination directed toward Hispanic employees anywhere in the Escambia County Health Department. Because he was unaware of such allegations of discrimination, akin to that complained of in the Petition for Relief, he could not have retaliated against the Petitioner for taking a stand or making complaints about alleged discriminatory conduct directed toward Hispanic employees.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 6th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Edna M. Rubin 1140 East Baars Street Pensacola, Florida 32503 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a veteran teacher should be dismissed for having drawn and displayed a kitchen knife while quieting a noisy class.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Lynn Deering ("Deering") had been a teacher for about 34 years. She holds a certificate to teach in Florida. During the 2004-05 school year, Deering was employed as a science teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, which is a public school in Broward County. For reasons that will soon be apparent, it is pertinent to note that Deering contracted polio at a young age and as an adult has suffered from post-polio syndrome. As a result of these illnesses, Deering's upper-body is weak, the range of motion of her upper extremities is limited, and she has little grip strength in her right hand, which is dominant. Since 1985, Deering has been confined to a wheelchair.1 The incident giving rise to this case occurred on March 2, 2005. When the bell rang that day to start Deering's sixth period anatomy and physiology class, the students were excited and talkative. As was her practice, Deering raised her hand to signal that she was ready to begin teaching; this gesture usually quieted the class. This time, however, the students continued to talk, and the classroom was noisy——too noisy for Deering to be heard. So Deering, who was sitting (in her wheelchair) in front of a demonstration table located at the head of the classroom, hitched up her right shoulder, reached back behind her body, and grabbed a utensil from the top of the table. She then used the utensil to tap on a glass beaker——which was filled with water and flowers——to get the students' attention. The "utensil" in question happened to be a knife. It was a chef's knife,2 bearing the Chefmate™ brand on its blade. Measured from butt to point, the knife was approximately 10 and one-half inches long. From heel to point, the blade was roughly five and three-quarters inches in length; it was no wider than about three-quarters of an inch from edge to spine. The knife was in Deering's classroom at the time because she had been using it to slice flowers and potatoes for demonstrations in her biology class.3 Upon hearing the distinctive "tap, tap, tap" of blade on beaker, most of the students stopped talking. Some in the back of the room, however, perhaps being out of earshot, continued to converse. Two were especially oblivious. Presently, Deering wheeled over to their lab table, still holding the knife in her right hand, between her thumb and fingers. When she reached the students' table, Deering turned the knife over in her hand, so that the point was down and the edge faced away from the students (toward Deering herself). Deering leaned over the table, in front of the where the two students were sitting, raised the knife an inch or two above a couple of sheets of paper that were lying on the tabletop, and, loosening her grip, let gravity pull the knife down between her fingers.4 Driven by the knife's own weight, the point punched through the papers, leaving small slits in them, and scratched the surface of the tabletop. Now gripping the knife's handle more tightly (for had she let go the knife would have fallen), Deering said, "Hello!"——which she pronounced "Heh-LOW!"——"Do I have your attention?" She did. The students stopped talking. Some were startled or frightened; others were amused or nonplussed. None, however, reacted as one might when facing a genuine threat of harm, e.g. by screaming or fleeing. As she returned to the front of the classroom, Deering joked, "Don't mess with a postmenopausal woman . . . with a knife!" This was meant to be humorous and was not uttered in a threatening tone of voice. Following this incident, Deering taught her lesson as usual, and the class unfolded in routine fashion. Her use of the knife, in other words, produced no discernible immediate fallout. At least a few students, however, were sufficiently upset by Deering's conduct to report the matter to the administration, and they did.5 The students' report not only set in motion an internal investigation, but also prompted the administration to call the police. Somehow, as well, the incident rapidly made its way into the local news. At least one local TV station aired a brief, 35-second story on the incident, which was short on facts, long on sensationalism, and notably unbalanced, in that Deering's side was not shown. The undersigned cannot comment on the contents or accuracy of other media reports, for they are not in evidence. In due course, the Broward County Sheriff's Office commenced an investigation that brought forth a criminal charge against Deering, who found herself accused of having improperly exhibited a dangerous weapon. The crime of improper exhibition, which is a misdemeanor, is defined in Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, as follows: If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self- defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree[.] Deering ultimately pleaded no contest to the criminal charge and was sentenced by the county court to three months' probation and a $30 fine. Meantime, the School Board decided that Deering should be fired, voting at its regular meeting on August 2, 2005, to accept the superintendent's recommendation that she be suspended without pay pending termination of employment. Following her suspension, Deering accepted a teaching position at the Upper Room Christian Academy, where she was working as a science and math teacher at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Deering without pay pending dismissal and (b) awarding Deering the back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the administrative proceedings, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 31st day of July, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Miami-Dade County with just or proper cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been since 1986, employed by the School Board as a Data Input Specialist II. Prior to the effective date of his suspension pending the outcome of the instant dismissal proceeding (that is, prior to the close of business on June 21, 2000), Respondent was assigned to the D. A. Dorsey Educational Center (Dorsey), an adult education center. His suspension pending the outcome of the instant dismissal proceeding is the only disciplinary action that has been taken against him in the approximately 15 years he has worked for the School Board. In discharging his duties as a Data Input Specialist II at Dorsey, Respondent was not responsible for supervising students, nor did he have reason to be with them alone. As a noninstructional employee of the School Board occupying a Data Input Specialist II position, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (Union) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Union (Union Contract), effective from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002. Article XXI, Section 3, of the Union Contract contains "[p]rocedures for [c]ontinued [e]mployment of [e]ducational [s]upport [p]ersonnel." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employees' employment status shall continue from year to year, unless the number of employees is reduced on a district-wide basis for financial reasons, or the employee is terminated for just cause. Just cause includes but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009. The employee is entitled to be represented by up to two representatives of the Union at any conference dealing with disciplinary action(s). Where the Superintendent recommends termination of the employee, the 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 by notifying the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action within 20 calendar days of receipt of the written notice. Following receipt of an appeal, the Board shall appoint an impartial administrative law judge, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the Board will file and serve the employee with a Specific Notice of Charges. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the findings of the administrative law judge shall be presented. The findings of the administrative law judge shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any seniority or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal. Dismissals are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Respondent has a seven-year-old daughter, J. Since his wife passed away in 1994, he has raised J. as a single parent. Four years ago, Respondent opened his home to a 13- year-old boy, D. J. J., whose family had been evicted from the apartment in which they had been living. D. J. J.'s stepmother had just died and his father was unable to properly care for him. From the time that D. J. J. first became a member of Respondent's household until the incident that is the focus of the instant case (Subject Incident), Respondent treated D. J. J. like a son. D. J. J., however, did not always reciprocate and act like a dutiful son. At times, he was rude and disrespectful toward Respondent and refused to follow Respondent's instructions. On three or four occasions prior to the Subject Incident, he even used physical force against Respondent. Respondent responded to these physical attacks, not by hitting D. J. J. back, but with words designed to impress upon D. J. J. that he needed to act appropriately and respect Respondent. While Respondent's words may not have had any long-lasting impact on D. J. J., by talking to D. J. J., Respondent was able to resolve the situation without the use of any force. D. J. J. was also physically aggressive toward Respondent's sister, Sara Payne, and Respondent's niece, Shara Payne. On one occasion, during a visit to Sara's home, D. J. J. asked Sara "to have sex with him." When Sara attempted to get D. J. J. to leave, he refused and grabbed Sara by the arms. Sara, however, was able to free her arms from D. J. J.'s grasp and push D. J. J. out the door. Sara reported to Respondent, prior to the Subject Incident, what had happened during D. J. J.'s visit. Respondent was also made aware, prior to the Subject Incident, of an instance where D. J. J. had walked into his niece's, Shara's, classroom at Miami Northwestern High School, demanded that she leave with him, and, when she refused, pulled her by arm, until a teacher intervened by calling school security. There is no indication that either Sara or Shara suffered any injuries as a result of the above-described incidents. The Subject Incident occurred on September 8, 1999. On that date, D. J. J. was 16 years of age, stood approximately five feet, two inches tall, weighed 160 pounds, 1/ and had a muscular build. Respondent was approximately 25 years older, 13 inches taller, and 40 pounds heavier than D. J. J. Upon returning home from work on September 8, 1999, Respondent reprimanded D. J. J. for not having done his chores around the house. D. J. J., in turn, without saying anything, picked up his house key and headed to the front door "as if he was going to leave." When he saw D. J. J. walking toward the door, Respondent asked D. J. J. for the house key. D. J. J. ignored Respondent's request. He continued walking, silently, toward the door. Respondent followed D. J. J., "sticking close to [D. J. J.] because [Respondent] didn't know [D. J. J.'s] intention." As Respondent repeated his request that D. J. J. hand him the key, D. J. J. went into the kitchen, took a hammer, laid the key down on the counter, and struck the key with the hammer with sufficient force to bend the key. D. J. J. then threw the key to the floor, moved toward Respondent, and struck Respondent in the jaw with a closed fist. After punching Respondent, D. J. J. walked into the living room and picked up a key chain containing Respondent's house and car keys. (Respondent did not have another key to the house.) The front door was locked from the inside 2/ and therefore D. J. J., if he wanted to exit the house (by conventional means), needed the house key to unlock the front door. (All of the house's windows, except for the "safety window," had bars on them, and the safety window was locked, with no key readily available to unlock it.) Concerned that he and his daughter (who was also in the house at the time) might be locked in the apartment if D. J. J. left with the house key, 3/ Respondent repeatedly requested that D. J. J. give him back his keys. Without saying a word, D. J. J. walked into his bedroom and sat down on his bed. Respondent followed him, demanding that D. J. J. return the keys. He told D. J. J., "you can leave and it won't be no trouble, just give me the keys." Maintaining his silence, D. J. J. stood up and started walking toward the bedroom door where Respondent was standing. As D. J. J. approached Respondent, 4/ Respondent took a hot (plugged-in and turned-on) iron that was on a nearby ironing board in the bedroom and struck D. J. J. with the iron in the face, thereby bruising and burning the side of D. J. J.'s face. A scuffle ensued, with D. J. J. trying to take the iron away from Respondent. During the scuffle, Respondent was burned on the leg by the iron, as it fell to the floor. D. J. J. then exited his bedroom and walked into the hallway, with Respondent following behind him. 5/ The hammer that D. J. J. had used to bend his house key was in the hallway. Respondent picked the hammer up and hit D. J. J. on the back of head with it. Neither Respondent's hitting D. J. J. on the back of the head with the hammer, nor Respondent's striking D. J. J. on the side of the face with the hot iron, was reasonably necessary to protect Respondent or his daughter against D. J. J. or to further any other legitimate purpose. Bleeding from the head wounds Respondent had inflicted, D. J. J. went to the telephone that was in the hallway and called the police, who shortly thereafter arrived on the scene. After speaking with D. J. J. and Respondent, and then examining D. J. J.'s injuries, the police placed Respondent under arrest for "aggravated child abuse." The police waited until Respondent's sister, Tatiana (who had agreed to care for J. in Respondent's absence), arrived at the house before transporting Respondent from the scene. Respondent spent the night in jail. The following day, September 8, 1999, Respondent was released pursuant to an Order of Pretrial Release Conditions, which, among other things, prohibited Respondent "from having any contact with" D. J. J. and required Respondent to "stay at least 500 feet away from [D. J. J.], [D. J. J.'s] home, place of employment and/or school at all times." On October 18, 1999, the State Attorney's Office filed, in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 99-30932, an "information for aggravated child abuse" against Respondent alleging the following: GREGORY PAYNE, on or about SEPTEMBER 8, 1999, in the County [of Miami-Dade] and [the] State [of Florida], did unlawfully feloniously commit an aggravated battery upon D. J. J., a child of sixteen (16) years of age, by HITTING HIM IN THE HEAD WITH A HAMMER AND BY PLACING A HOT IRON ON HIS FACE, and during the commission of such felony the defendant committed an aggravated battery in violation of s.827.03(1), Fla. Stat., 6/ contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. That same day, Respondent was arrested and taken into custody for violating the requirement of the September 8, 1999, Order of Pretrial Release Conditions that he "stay away" from D. J. J. Respondent remained in jail until October 26, 1999. On that date, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the "aggravated child abuse" charge filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 99-30932, after having discussed the matter with his attorney and determined that it was in his best interest to enter such a plea. Respondent was thereafter adjudicated guilty of the crime and ordered to serve one year of community control, followed by one year of probation, during which he was required to "enter and successfully complete the Anger Control Program." 7/ The School Board learned of Respondent's "aggravated child abuse" conviction through a records check (Records Check E-02988). A conference-for-the-record with Respondent was held on February 23, 2000, "to address Records Check E-02988 concerning Aggravated Child Abuse, noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Employee Conduct, a review of the record, and [Respondent's] future employment status with Miami-Dade County Public Schools." At the conference, Respondent was provided a copy of the records check findings and provided the opportunity, of which he took advantage, to "respond to the allegation that [he] 'w[as] arrested and later convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse.'" After doing so, he was advised that further review of the matter would be undertaken and that he would remain in his current assignment pending the outcome of such further review, provided he did the following: Remain in control of [him]self at all times and, specifically, during work hours. Comply with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Employee Conduct, a copy of which was provided to [him]. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), Employee Conduct, has provided as follows: 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. A pre-dismissal conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on May 19, 2000. At the conference, Respondent was told that a recommendation for his dismissal would be made based upon the following charges: Just cause, including but not limited to, immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. The Superintendent of Schools subsequently made such a recommendation to the School Board. At its June 21, 2000, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated a proceeding to terminate his employment "for just cause, including, but not limited to, immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Respondent formally appealed his proposed termination pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3F. of the Union Contract, and the School Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing on the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the School Board filed and served on Respondent a Notice of Specific Charges, as required by Article XXI, Section 3F. of the Union Contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment on the grounds set forth in Counts I through III of the Notice of Specific Charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001.
