The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . 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 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves 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 presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is used in Section 23.167, Florida Statutes. By memo dated November 6, 1981, all principals in Pinellas County were advised by Seymour Brown, Director, Secondary Placement and Substitute Teachers, that Thomas A. Rateau, Petitioner, was eligible to substitute in their schools as a teacher in business education and mathematics for grades 7 through 12. That substitute teacher offer was conditioned upon Rateau passing the November 11, 1981, physical examination. Rateau passed this examination. The principal at Dunedin Senior High School needed a teacher in business education to complete the semester ending January 25, 1982. He reviewed the applications on file in the office of Dr. Seymour Brown, interviewed Petitioner, and selected Petitioner to fill the vacancy at his school. The principal notified Dr. Brown of his choice and Petitioner was offered a contract for a teaching position in the Pinellas County school system for the 1981-82 school year for a period of 32 duty days beginning November 30, 1981, and ending January 25, 1982, which Petitioner accepted (Exhibit 2). This offer and acceptance were conditioned upon acceptable certification by licensed medical practitioner on a medical information form provided by the Personnel Department (Exhibit 2). At his option Petitioner took the medical information form to his attending physician, Dr. Guiterrez, who, on November 24, 1981, conducted a complete physical examination. Dr. Guiterrez summarized Petitioner's condition as "physically healthy." Following this entry the box checked provided: "Has permanent physical limitations acceptable for this job. Re-examine before transfer to another position." Dr. Guiterrez also completed the School Board form (Exhibit 6) in which he wrote or checked the following: Diagnosis: Status Post-spinal Surgery Prognosis: Fair Medication Prescribed: Bufferin Dosage: Restrictions, If Any: No heavy lifting Eligible To Work: Yes Under My Care: Yes The physical examination conducted by Dr. Guiterrez was forwarded' to the School Board examining physician, Dr. Joseph A. Baird. Dr. Baird had Petitioner complete the medical information part of Exhibit 12. Therein Petitioner acknowledged that he had had back surgery, that he has a current medical problem with his back, that he has received worker's compensation, and that he has physical limitations. In describing his worker's compensation claim (Exhibit 12), Petitioner stated that while employed by the U.S. Postal Service an industrial accident caused by a failure of equipment exacerbated an unknown, pre-existing condition which was determined to be a tumor growing in his spinal column. Surgery subsequently removed that part of the tumor that had grown out of the bottom of his spine. He was terminated by the postal service because he could no longer perform the continually heavy lifting required by his postal service job. Dr. Baird questioned Petitioner about his back problems and learned that if the tumor again grows out of his spine Petitioner may need additional surgery. Dr. Baird observed the scar on Petitioner's back, had Petitioner bend at the waist and checked his knee-jerk reflexes. This examination took less than five minutes. Dr. Baird then contacted Patricia Diskey, Employment Coordinator for the School Board, and discussed with her Petitioner's condition and asked her to provide him with the physical requirements for a teacher of business education in a Pinellas County high school. Following this discussion, Dr. Baird submitted the form letter to the office of Dr. Brown stating simply that Petitioner did not meet the physical requirements necessary for employment in the Instructional Department of the Pinellas County School Board (Exhibit 11). At the hearing Patricia Diskey testified that the job requirements for a high school business education teacher included the ability to do frequent and heavy lifting of typewriters, computer components, and other office equipment used to teach business education; to be able to bend down to clearly see the data processing screen used by the students; to move numerous books from classroom to classroom; to transport equipment to the school's service center several blocks distant, take the equipment into the center for repairs and return with replacement equipment; and to stand for long periods of time. She also testified that business education teachers would be required to lift and move equipment around the classroom weighing up to 100 pounds. However, no evidence was presented that a demonstration of such physical ability was ever required of a business education teacher in the Pinellas County school system. Dr. Baird never includes a muscle-tone test in the examinations he conducts for teacher applicants. Petitioner was not requested to demonstrate his capability or inability to lift equipment used in the classroom. Physically, Petitioner is a well-developed white male. Exhibit 12 shows him 5 feet eleven and one-half inches in height and weight of 225 pounds. He is not obese and gives the appearance of one having greater than average strength normally found in men his age. Respondent presented evidence that it has employed disabled persons, and a list of those handicapped persons employed in Respondent's secondary schools was presented as Exhibit 9. It is noted that the majority of those handicapped employees listed have permanent type disabilities such as blind in one eye, deformed arm, legally blind, uses crutches, part of limb missing, speech impediment, hearing problems, limps, crippled leg, etc. Respondent also presented evidence that persons suffering back problems were hired by the School Board (Exhibit 10), one of whom was a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, but produced no evidence that it had employed a teacher so handicapped.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based on determinations by two licensed psychologists that Respondent was not fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. A superintendent of schools has the statutory responsibility and obligation to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require compliance and observance by all personnel of all laws, policies, and directives of the school board, the State of Florida, and the federal government. In this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School District has recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated because she is not fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher. Respondent is a classroom teacher with approximately ten years of teaching experience. For the 2008-09 school year, Respondent taught at Seminole Middle School. Respondent received a satisfactory evaluation for that school year. Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Everglades for the 2009-10 school year pursuant to a professional service contract. The School Board has adopted Policy 4004, which provides for mandatory physical and/or psychological examinations for employees, as follows: AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT WHEN IT SHALL BE DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT/DESIGNEE, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. RULES The Board authorizes the Superintendent to establish procedures to carry out the intent of this policy. The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations. Where the employee is found to be unable to function satisfactorily, the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations shall take appropriate action. On October 14, 2009, Eliot Tillinger, principal of Everglades, sent the following memo to Craig Kowalski, who was serving as the Acting Executive Director of SIU: As per the above the above referenced policy [Policy 4004], a "fit for duty" evaluation is being requested for Donna Lichi. Attached please find her job description as well as supporting documentation. Multiple concerns regarding the safety and welfare of the students have arisen from staff and parents in the school community. As reflected in the memo, Mr. Tillinger attached documentation supporting his request. This documentation was prepared by Mr. Tillinger (or by his staff at his direction), and documented his personal observations plus complaints he had received from parents and school staff. Mr. Tillinger did not formally observe Respondent, nor did he conduct a formal evaluation of her performance. His observations were from his customary "walk-throughs," which entailed unscheduled visits to classrooms and observations of approximately five minutes a visit. Of particular concern to Mr. Tillinger were reports that on at least two occasions, Respondent left children who were supposed to be under her supervision without supervision. One child was observed urinating on a bush while on the playground. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent talked on her cell phone. On another occasion, Respondent permitted two children to walk unsupervised through an area that parents were driving through to pick up their children after school. The children were returning from a park adjacent to the school. The children had gone to the park to retrieve an object one of them had left during recess. Respondent exposed those two children to danger by allowing them to go to the park unsupervised. No formal disciplinary action was taken against Respondent following either incident. Mr. Tillinger received a report from parents of children in Respondent's class that Respondent's interaction with them was unusual. One parent told Mr. Tillinger that Respondent was self-absorbed at the "meet your teacher" conducted just before school started and at the "open house" conducted shortly after school started. On these occasions, Respondent bragged about what good a teacher she was and boasted of her personal achievements and accolades. That parent opined to Mr. Tillinger (and testified at the formal hearing) that he did not think Respondent was aware of what was happening in her classroom because at a parent-teacher conference she did not know that his daughter could not log onto the classroom computer for several days. That parent also complained to Mr. Tillinger that Respondent required her students to wear shirts of a certain color on different days of the week, a practice that was not sanctioned by the school administration. The parent also reported that Respondent refused to complete a questionnaire a psychologist had asked Respondent (as the child's teacher) to complete as part of an evaluation of the student. Another parent reported to Mr. Tillinger that Respondent's behavior during a parent-teacher conference was bizarre. This parent reported that Respondent had "almost a catatonic stare" during the conference. The parent also reported that in a subsequent telephone conference, Respondent abruptly hung up on the parent during the middle of the conversation. Mr. Tillinger characterized the number of complaints and the nature of the complaints as being "unusual." Martha Machado was the grade chair for the second grade at Everglades. Ms. Machado met with the other second grade teachers on a weekly basis to discuss any concerns or issues. Although she attended these meetings, Respondent was never engaged in these meetings by asking questions or contributing comments. Ms. Machado met with Respondent prior to the beginning of school to help her settle into her classroom. During that first meeting, Respondent removed from her classroom all chairs that were not colored blue and replaced them with blue chairs taken from other second grade classrooms. Respondent thereafter decorated the walls of her room completely in blue. Ms. Machado considered this behavior to be unusual. Ms. Machado gave Respondent detailed lesson plans at the beginning of school and provided Respondent with copies of lesson plans Ms. Machado used for her own class. Ms. Machado offered to assist Respondent and was available to answer any questions. Until October, Respondent did not ask any questions as to the lesson plans. The lesson plans were provided to assist Respondent. Ms. Machado told Respondent to use them, modify them, or do whatever else she wanted with them. In October, Respondent admitted to Ms. Machado that she did not understand her lesson plans. Respondent also stated that she had not received copies of the lesson plans.1 Respondent had no explanation for why she did not tell Ms. Machado sooner that she did not understand the lesson plans. When a student was transferred from one classroom to another classroom, the student was to take his or her books and workbook to the new classroom. After a student was transferred from Respondent's classroom to another second grade classroom, the new teacher sent the student to Respondent's classroom to get the student's books and workbook. After the student retrieved the books and the workbook, the student returned to the new classroom. Soon thereafter, Respondent entered the new classroom, took the workbook from the student, and returned to her classroom. When informed of the incident, Ms. Machado told Respondent to return the workbook to the student. Ms. Machado observed that Respondent was overly complimentary to her, copied her hairstyle, and purchased a purse identical to Ms. Machado's purse. Ms. Machado found this behavior to be strange. Ms. Machado discussed her concerns about Respondent with Mr. Tillinger. Mr. Tillinger also received reports that on more than one occasion, Respondent dismissed her class 15 minutes prior to the end of the school day and had her class wait in the stairwell, singing songs and playing games until the final bell rang. In response to his observations, the reports he heard as to Respondent's behavior, and his concerns as to student safety, Mr. Tillinger assigned Melissa Renedo, an intern teacher, to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Renedo was instructed to assist Respondent, and to let Ms. Machado know if anything in Respondent's class made her uncomfortable with respect to the students' safety, welfare, or academics. Respondent's classroom was disorganized. She had no reading groups, she had no lesson plans (other than those given to her by Ms. Machado), and she would interrupt lessons to permit students to go to the "treasure box" to get a trinket as a reward for wearing a certain colored shirt. Ms. Renedo witnessed Respondent pick up a student in the middle of a lesson, comment on how he smelled, and asked him about his cologne. During a reading lesson, Respondent called the parent of the student with the cologne to see if she could go to the parent's house for dinner. Ms. Renedo observed that Respondent frequently stopped during a lesson to wipe down door handles, computers, and desks with Lysol. One morning two students who said they were fifth grade students came to Respondent's classroom at her request to assist her with setting up a bulletin board. When it was time for lunch, Respondent took her class to lunch, leaving the two fifth grade students unsupervised in the classroom. When Ms. Renedo questioned Respondent about leaving the students unsupervised, Respondent replied that it would be okay and that they were there to help out. Ms. Renedo's observations and concerns were conveyed to both Ms. Machado and Mr. Tillinger. Mr. Tillinger had sufficient justification for requesting the fit for duty evaluation on Respondent dated October 14, 2009.2 The documentation submitted with the request was sufficient justification for SIU to deem it "advisable" to require Respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools had in effect the following Policy 4004 procedures relating to fitness for duty determinations: Fit for Duty Determination Procedures The Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit (SIU) receives request from a Principal/Administrator (includes District Administrators) or Superintendent/Designee. SIU notifies employee via certified mail that he/she must undergo a physical and/or psychological examination. A reassignment letter is prepared directing employee to remain at home or at an alternate site with pay, depending on circumstances (i.e. active case file/investigation). The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit, within 24 hours. SIU Administrator schedules within ten working days a medical appointment and follows-up in writing to the doctor's office and to the employee of appointment confirmation. Letter is sent to the doctor explaining billing instructions, and 'Fit for Duty Evaluation' report of findings. The doctor as delineated in the policy will conduct Pre [sic] evaluation at District expense. Note: a 2nd Opinion will be at the employee's expense if requested, with the employee selecting from the School Board approved list as delineated in the policy. A third evaluation will be mandated if previous two (Pre & 2nd Opinion) are contradicting and will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. Doctor determines if employee is 'Fit for Duty' or [is] not [fit] for duty. Where the employee is found 'unfit for duty' the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit shall take appropriate action per the recommendation of the doctor, subjecting employee to a Post-evaluation by the same doctor making the initial evaluation. The Post-evaluation ought to occur within 90 days of the initial evaluation. If a doctor determines that the employee is 'Unfit for Duty', an administrative reassignment letter is prepared changing the employee's pay status to 'at home without pay (PLV)'. The employee is given information to call the Leave Department to apply for any paid leave accrued, and/or any other leave types per SBBC Policies that they are eligible for. Also, a Formal Referral to EAP is prepared for follow-up. Based on the progress and/or compliance with EAP's recommendations, a Post Evaluation is scheduled within the 90- day reassessment period. If employee is unfit to return to work in the Post Evaluation, then the employee is recommended for termination (School Board Agenda is prepared for the next Board Meeting). Note: 2nd Opinions on the Post evaluation will be at the employee's expense, if requested. Third evaluation, if required will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. Employee and school/work site are notified of doctor's fit for duty status via certified mail. (Note: Confidential Doctor's report will only be distributed to the employee). The immediate supervisor is notified as well. However if the doctor has follow-up recommendations, then a Formal Referral to Employee Assistant Program (EAP) is prepared by SIU (i.e. mental health follow-up or other referrals as appropriate. If employee is found Fit for Duty, a certified letter is sent to the employee with instructions to return to work. The immediate supervisor is notified as well. Richard Mijon delivered a letter to Respondent on October 16, 2009, informing her that she would be required to submit to a fit-for-duty evaluation. Respondent chose Dr. Rick Harris to conduct the initial evaluation. Dr. Harris found Respondent not to be fit for duty. Because of that finding, Dr. Harris also performed a re-evaluation. Prior to the evaluations, Mr. Mijon provided Dr. Harris with the documentation attached to Mr. Tillinger's request and the results of other investigations by SIU of Respondent's behavior that occurred before she was transferred to Everglades. As part of the initial evaluation, Dr. Harris examined Respondent on November 2 and December 15, 2009, and on January 6, 2010. His report, dated January 22, 2010, is part of School Board's Exhibit 4. After discussing the results of the tests he administered and his clinical interview, Dr. Harris' report summarized his findings and explained his reasons for those findings. His testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with his report. Dr. Harris found that Respondent was not fit for duty. On June 7, 2010, Dr. Harris conducted his re- evaluation of Respondent. His report, dated August 12, 2010, is also part of School Board's Exhibit 4. After discussing the results of the tests he administered during the re-evaluation, and his clinical interview, Dr. Harris' report summarized his findings and explained his reasons for those findings. His testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with his report. Dr. Harris found that Respondent continued to be unfit for duty. The undersigned finds Dr. Harris' testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. Petitioner proved that Respondent was not fit for duty on the initial evaluation and re-evaluation by Dr. Harris. Pursuant to the School Board's Policy 4004, Respondent was entitled to seek a second opinion by being evaluated by a separate School Board approved psychologist of her choosing, but at Respondent's expense. Respondent chose Dr. Grace Sidberry, a licensed psychologist. Dr. Sidberry evaluated Respondent on September 8 and 14, 2010. Her report dated September 14, 2010, is contained in School Board's Exhibit 9. After discussing the results of the tests she administered during the re-evaluation, and her clinical interview, Dr. Sidberry's report summarized her findings and explained her reasons for those findings. Her testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with her report. Dr. Sidberry found that Respondent was unfit for duty. The undersigned finds Dr. Sidberry's testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was not fit for duty as a classroom teacher as of September 14, 2010. Drs. Harris and Sidberry opined that Respondent's fitness for duty may be restored following appropriate treatment for the conditions that render her unfit for duty. Respondent would not benefit from a performance development plan before her fitness for duty is restored. The School Board followed its applicable rules in processing the "fit for duty" request submitted by Mr. Tillinger.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated just cause for the dismissal of the Respondent from employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact In a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed to the following facts: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Marlon J. Pearce was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, and subject to the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education and of the School Board in accordance with § 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to § 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida and § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). On November 5, 2000, a conference-for- record (CFR) was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 7, 2001, another CFR was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 15, 2002, a CFR was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. On May 28, 2002, a meeting was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. At its regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 2002, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondent. John Schoeck is currently and for the last two years has been the Principal of North Hialeah Elementary School. For the preceding five years, he was the Principal at North Glade Elementary School. While at North Glade, Mr. Schoeck hired the Respondent, Mr. Pearce, to teach physical education. (Tr. 13) After a November 5, 2000, conference-for-record (CFR) with Mr. Pearce, Mr. Schoeck issued certain directives to Mr. Pearce. Among those directives were the requirement for professional conduct with parents, students and staff, and prohibitions on using profanity, on making verbal or physical threats to parents, students or staff members, and on having verbal or physical confrontations with coworkers. (Tr. 18, 208- 209, P-6) Mr. Schoeck also referred Mr. Pearce to the Employee Assistance Program based on interpersonal behavior observed on the job. (Tr. 9, P-5) An allegation that the Respondent hit a student in the back with his fist was unsubstantiated, in March 2001. The Respondent testified that the student was loud, easily influenced and had an attitude. (Tr. 185) Another student at North Glade Elementary School became involved in a rock-throwing incident with the Respondent. The Respondent described the student as defiant. He testified that after the student threw a rock and hit him, he grabbed her arm to make eye contact, but after she "started going wild and shaking," he let her go and she fell to the ground. There was testimony that her shirt was torn when she reached the principal's office, but the Respondent denied that it was ripped when she left him. (Tr. 186-188, 212-213) On March 7, 2001, Mr. Schoeck held another CFR with Mr. Pearce, as a result of certain allegations by a student and his mother that Mr. Pearce called the student a "punk." Mr. Schoeck found Mr. Pearce insubordinate and reiterated the directives issued after the November conference. (Tr. 24-25, 209-210, 215-216, P-9) The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department ("the school's police") investigated several students' complaints alleging that Respondent had subjected them to corporal punishment. The police found the complaints to be unsubstantiated. Each time there was an incident, the Respondent was reminded of the School Board's policy prohibiting corporal punishment. (Tr. 32-33) Late in the 2000-2001 school year, the Respondent was reassigned to the region office and, subsequently, for the 2001- 2002 school year to Lawton Chiles Middle School (Tr. 33 and Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation) On November 7, 2001, a charge of verbal abuse, for calling a student "stupid," was substantiated against the Respondent. (Tr. 219, P-17) The Respondent testified that what he said was "stop acting stupid" because the student was loud and saying she knew why he had been fired from his other job and was quoting the Bible. (Tr. 197-198) He also said that, in the heat of the moment, he also called her stupid. (Tr. 200) On November 8, 2001, the Respondent violated the School Board policy against "unseemly conduct, or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace," by using the word "nigga." (Tr. 60-67 and P-16) The Respondent testified that the racial slur was made "under his breath" and not intended to be heard by students. He testified that what he said was "you're going to drive a nigga crazy," and that the comment was directed to himself, not the student. (Tr. 195) The Respondent testified that he told a student "If I was your dad, I would ring your neck," because the student was disruptive, defiant and not following directions. (Tr. 195-196, 218-219) In December 2001, a student was playing with a toilet valve and water was squirting out on the floor in the boys' locker room. After the student left the stall and walked over towards him, the Respondent grabbed him by the neck and shoved him. After an investigation by the school's police, the charge was found to be substantiated. (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) The Respondent testified that he grabbed the student's shoulder but did not push him. (Tr. 201-202) Although the student had stopped spraying water at the time he confronted him, the Respondent considered his intervention appropriate because the wet floor created a safety concern. (Tr. 205, 214-215, 217-218) At the same time, other students began slamming locker doors in the locker room. The Respondent called the students involved "a bunch of assholes," and said "If you do this one more time, I could lose my job for hurting you." (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) About the same time, the Assistant Principal at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Alberto Iber, received a complaint from the parents of another student. While he was playing with an injured student's aluminum walker, the Respondent grabbed him to try to retrieve the walker and pushed him to the ground. He also said to the student "fuck you." Charges of corporal punishment and the use of profanity were substantiated. (Tr. 93-112 and P-19) The Respondent admitted that he pulled the student down after saying "This is going to be the final time I ask you to sit down." (Tr. 204) He said he used the "f" word under his voice. (Tr. 205) When the Respondent was first assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School, the Principal, Karen Robinson met with him to discuss the previous incidents at North Glade Elementary School and to discuss expectations that he would abide by the School Board's rules. Each time there was an incident involving the Respondent, Ms. Robinson called the District's Professional Standards Office which referred the matters to the school's police to conduct the personnel investigations. (Tr. 119-133, 219-220) After the fourth personnel investigation at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Ms. Robinson contacted the personnel director for the region. She was concerned that the incidents involving the Respondent were escalating from inappropriate verbal to more serious physical interactions with students. As a result, she recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. (Tr. 135-136 and P-21) Barbara Moss, the District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, agreed with Ms. Robinson's and the region personnel director's recommendations to terminate the Respondent's employment. (Tr. 164-165, P-22 and 23) Ms. Moss, in turn, recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. She met with Respondent to notify him of the proposed action. (Tr. 165-166) The Superintendent of Schools also recommended that the School Board take action to terminate Respondent's employment and notified the Respondent of that recommendation. (P-24 and 25) The Superintendent also notified the Respondent when the School Board, at its meeting on June 19, 2002, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against him for misconduct in office, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.108, on Violence in the Workplace; 6Gx13-4A-1.21, on Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment - Prohibited. Notice of the availability of an administrative hearing to contest the action was also included. (P-24 through 26)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay on June 19, 2002, terminating Respondent's employment, and denying the Respondent back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merritt R. Stierhelm, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade - Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a journeyman mason employed by Petitioner. The school district is divided into large regions, and Respondent is one of only two masons available to schools located within the region to which he has been assigned. As a mason, Respondent performs his work exclusively at school sites, rather than at a centralized shop. In May 2005, Edward Smith, then the principal of the Dario Middle Community School, was in his office and overheard Respondent involved in a loud verbal exchange. School clerical staff had appropriately asked Respondent to present an employee identification badge prior to engaging in work within the school. Respondent was in the office area preparing to perform some masonry work, but, at the moment of the request, was shouting into his cellphone at a representative of a lender with whom he was conducting personal business. Respondent became angry at school staff, when they persisted in asking that he present identification despite his attempt to wave them away. Claiming that he was concerned that he would lose reception and, thus, the call, Respondent did not want to interrupt his cellphone conversation to deal with the request to present identification. When staff continued to demand identification, Respondent's anger spilled over toward school staff. Mr. Smith approached Respondent and demanded to see his identification. Instead of responding to Mr. Smith's demand, Respondent first uttered several profanities, including "shit" and "fuck," to the lender's representative. After uttering these profanities, Respondent turned his attention to Mr. Smith and told him that his identification was in his truck. Mr. Smith then escorted Respondent to his truck so he could produce his badge. During this time, Respondent continued his cellphone conversation, loudly and crudely denouncing the person with whom he was speaking. Respondent produced his school identification in the truck. Shocked at this unprecedented rudeness by a school district employee, Mr. Smith immediately contacted Respondent's supervisor and told him that he never wanted Respondent on his campus again, even if it meant that something broken remained broken. Respondent's supervisor informed Respondent that this type of behavior was unacceptable. On May 26, 2005, Respondent received a reprimand for his behavior at Dario Middle Community School. The reprimand ordered Respondent, among other things, to "[f]ollow all procedures and conduct yourself in a professional manner at all facilities at all times" and "[w]ear your badge at all times, sign in and out at the main office at each school assigned as indicated in your employee handbook . . ., and not engage in any inappropriate contact with students and staff." In September 2005, Dr. Doylene Tarver, the principal of Everglades K-8 Center, overheard from her office Respondent yelling and screaming at her staff. Dr. Tarver left her office and found Respondent angrily confronting the security guard, who was insisting, in accordance with school rules, that Respondent sign in as a visitor. This disruption took place in the presence of after-care parents at the school to pick up their children. Dr. Tarver approached Respondent, who demanded to know who she was. After she identified herself as "Dr. Tarver," Respondent asked if she had been one of the school personnel recently identified in the media as having purchased her degree. Dr. Tarver was understandably offended at this impertinence and demanded that Respondent sign in. He did so and proceeded to report to his work site at the school. As had Mr. Smith four months earlier, Dr. Tarver contacted Respondent's supervisor and requested that he not assign Respondent to her school again. Like Mr. Smith, she had never encountered such behavior from a school district employee. Following a conference for the record on February 13, 2006, Robert Brown, the Administrative Director of Maintenance Operations recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. On August 2, 2006, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated proceedings to terminate his employment. Respondent's behavior disrupted the business of the school in two respects. First, as the behavior transpired, school staff and parents were distracted from their business at the school, but, each time, the behavior was worse than a mere distraction. Each of these incidents--separated by only four months--combined a breach of security with a menacing display of aggressive behavior. After failing to conform to simple security procedures, Respondent did not immediately comply, but instead became confrontational, so as to suggest to school staff that the security breach was escalating. Second, both principals found it necessary to ensure that Respondent never perpetrate another disruption at their schools, so they reasonably demanded that Respondent's supervisor never reassign Respondent to their schools. The supervisor agreed to do so, but this left two schools in the region without a mason anytime that the other mason was unavailable due to another assignment, vacation, or illness. Masonry work sometimes constitutes emergency repairs and any delay in performing the work could perpetuate a dangerous condition. Also, some masonry work is a two-person job, and, for such jobs at the two affected schools, Petitioner would have to find a mason from another region and assign him or her out-of-region. For these reasons, Respondent's actions constituted willful neglect of duty, unseemly and abusive conduct, and gross insubordination. Twice in four months, Respondent ignored simple security procedures at schools to which he had been assigned to work. Twice in four months, Respondent refused to comply with these procedures when asked to do so by school staff and instead angrily confronted these school employees. Instead of getting to work at the school sites to which he had been assigned, Respondent disrupted the schools and presented himself as a risk to the security of the students, staff, and parents at both sites. Respondent's confrontation with the two principals, who were trying to restore order and ensure compliance with school security rules, was gross insubordination, as was his failure to comply with the simple, sensible directives in the reprimand that followed the first incident. Additionally, the inability of Petitioner to assign Respondent to two schools within his region impeded his effectiveness as an employee and meant that the performance of his duties would be deficient, at least in this regard. The collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee in effect at the time of these events was the 2002-06 contract. This contract did not require progressive discipline, but Article IV of the contract authorized Petitioner to terminate employees for "just cause." Article XI, Section 1.a of the contract provides for discipline due to the violation of Respondent's rules.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Honorable Jeanine Blomberg Interim Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Robert Holland, Esquire Law Offices of Robert W. Holland 5955 Northeast Fourth Court Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against each Respondent; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to these cases, the School Board was the duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Martin, Cantu, and Barcena, are U.S. Army retirees. At all times material to this matter, Martin held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 582838, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program. At all times material to this matter, Cantu held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 620107, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach JROTC. At all times material to this matter, Barcena held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 569030, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach JROTC. At all times material to the allegations set forth in the Notices of Specific Charges, Respondents were employed as annual contract teachers for the JROTC program at Miami Jackson Senior High School (Miami Jackson), a Dade County public school. Barcena was employed as the Senior Army Instructor (SAI). Martin and Cantu were employed as Assistant Army Instructors. At all times material to these cases, the Faculty Handbook for Miami Jackson contained, in pertinent part, the following provisions related to school field trips: All personnel involved with submitting or approving field trip requests must follow the rules, regulations, and procedures listed below. The listed procedures will indicate the responsibilities of the sponsor, the principal, and the area superintendent. * * * The following procedures for all out-of state, and out-of-county field trips are categorized as sponsor, principal, and area superintendent responsibilities. Sponsor's Responsibilities Request permission from the principal to conduct a field trip before initiating the planning stages. * * * 3. Present periodic progress reports to the principal, or designee, during the procedural process. * * * FIELD TRIPS Trips for students are permitted which have value in meeting educational objectives and are directly related to the curriculum or are necessary to the fulfillment of obligations to the interscholastic athletic and activity programs. * * * Provisions must be made for the proper supervision of students by school employees. Parents are permitted to assist in such supervision. Permission for students to participate in all events listed on the Florida High School Activities Association calendar and in all regularly scheduled interscholastic events within the State may be granted by the principal. Requests for student groups other than indicated above to leave the county for events with-in the state shall be directed to the area superintendent for approval or disapproval. * * * It is important that all school requirements be met when field trips are to be made. If you plan a field trip please follow these procedures: Determine if the field trip is the most efficient type of learning experience. Discuss tentative plans with department head or sponsor and Assistant Principal for Curriculum. Secure three forms from the Activities Director's office * * * Complete FT-1 "Field Trip Information" and have approved by the Assistant Principal for Curriculum. * * * The teacher makes a memo (listing students alphabetically, giving grade and section) and gives it to the Activities Director three days before the trip. * * * 10. When private cars are used to transport students, the driver must be an adult. On February 26, 1986, Martin executed a Disposition Form (DF) which was addressed to the Commander, HHB, 227th Field Arty. Bde. The purpose of this document was to request, on behalf of the Miami Jackson JROTC, permission to use the Snake Creek Launch area (Snake Creek) for adventure training during the weekend of April 4-6, 1986. Martin specified that the type of training would be "Lecture/Patroling" and that he was the "Authorized Officials incharge." Snake Creek is a military training area controlled by the Florida National Guard and located in Broward County, Florida. Prior to submitting the DF described in paragraph 8, Martin had not complied with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On September 18, 1986, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates October 24-26, 1986. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On February 19, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates February 27-March 1, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On May 4, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates May 15-17, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On May 6, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates May 29-June 1, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On September 22, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates October 15-18, 1987. This request also specified that the intended use of the facility was for "adventure training" and the type of training would be "Lecture/Patroling." Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On December 3, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates December 18-23, 1987. Again, this request specified that "adventure training" was the intended use. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On each occasion that Martin executed a DF, it was intended that students enrolled in the Miami Jackson JROTC program would go to the Snake Creek facility, camp together, and engage in military training. Not all of the campouts were taken. With the exception of the campout of December 1987, Martin attended, at least for part of the time, all of the campouts which were taken. On all of the campouts, some of the students wore fatigue uniforms which had been issued from the Miami Jackson JROTC. During the campout of December 1987, one of the Miami Jackson JROTC students was injured slightly as a result of a BB gun shooting. Thereafter, Barcena (who was aware of the field trips) decided that there should be no more Snake Creek trips. This decision was not effectively communicated to the assistant instructors nor were the student leaders who planned the outings told the trips would not be sanctioned. For each of the Snake Creek trips taken, student leaders of the Miami Jackson JROTC planned the activity, typed the DF request forms, collected monies from the students for groceries and supplies, and arranged private transportation for the students who required rides to the facility. Monies were collected on school grounds and planning conferences regarding the trips were conducted during school hours in the JROTC rooms. A rake and a broom belonging to Miami Jackson JROTC were taken on the trips. Martin attended several of the Snake Creek trips. On each trip he attended, Martin was the only adult/teacher/parent who attended. Martin did not remain with the students the entire time but would leave for brief periods (one to two hours) to go home, shower, and change clothes. During these absences, no adult/teacher/parent was in attendance. Cantu's employment with the Miami Jackson JROTC began in October 1987. Cantu attended the December 1987, Snake Creek trip for approximately four hours on Saturday. Martin did not attend this trip. Barcena attended the December 1987, trip for approximately one hour on Sunday. All teachers are required to attend a preschool conference during which the teacher handbook is discussed. Cantu was not present during the 1987/88 preschool conference (he had not been hired) but was required to attend the preschool conference for the 1988/89 school year. Martin and Barcena were required to attend the preschool conferences for all years material to the allegations of the Specific Notices of Charges. Barcena, as department head for the JROTC unit, had a copy of the teacher handbook and other regulations in the JROTC office. As department head, Barcena had knowledge of and had utilized the field trips provisions. On September 8, 1988, Cantu executed a DF which requested use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the period September 9-12, 1988. While this form indicated Martin would be the "Authorized Official Incharge," Cantu knew that Martin was not going to attend the trip. In fact, none of the Miami Jackson JROTC instructors were to attend this particular trip. Cantu did not have Martin's permission to sign the form for him. Unfortunately, during the September 1988 Snake Creek outing one of the students drowned. This drowning precipitated the investigation into the trips to Snake Creek and the subsequent disciplinary action against the Respondents. Effective October 19, 1988, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Martin and Cantu. Effective November 2, 1988, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Barcena. On or about March 31, 1989, the U.S. Army withdrew the instructor certifications issued to Respondents. Effective that date they were to "disassociate" from the JROTC program. Consequently, effective that date they were no longer eligible for employment at Miami Jackson as JROTC instructors. The employment agreement between JROTC instructors and the School Board provided, in pertinent part: 4. RELATIONSHIPS * * * e. Professional standards which apply to other instructional personnel also apply to ROTC Instructors. These include but are not limited to: -preparation of lesson plans -maintenance of daily attendance records -maintenance of grading records and student work files -attendance at faculty meetings -attendance at parent conferences when applicable -compliance with State, District, and school administrations rules, regulations, policies and procedures * * * JOB DESCRIPTION A ROTC Instructor is responsible for: * * * -planning, conducting, and supervising field trips and similar cocurricular activities. Prior to his employment, Cantu was not trained to teach either grade or high school. Prior to the September 1988, trip to Snake Creek, Cantu had not reviewed the faculty handbook for Miami Jackson. The procedure for obtaining the Snake Creek facility was established before Cantu became employed at Miami Jackson. Barcena was aware the students were using Snake Creek for weekend field trips. Cantu signed the DF for the September 1988, trip because he believed the students would go to the Everglades camping if Snake Creek were not provided. Cantu considered Snake Creek a safer alternative. Cantu did not discuss the DF with either Martin (who had refused to sign the form for the students) or Barcena. Cantu believed the trip did not require further authorization. Martin refused to sign the DF for the September 1988, trip because he was not able to attend and supervise the trip. On August 26, 1988, Barcena received a Letter of Reprimand for conduct unbecoming an employee. For a trip conducted on October 30, 1987, Barcena, as department head, executed a "Request for Trip Away" form in connection with a JROTC trip during school periods 6 and 7. For a trip conducted on December 16, 1987, Barcena, as department head, executed a "Request for Trip Away" form in connection with a field trip to the Port of Miami. The JROTC class missed school periods 2 through 6. Although aware of field trip procedures, Barcena did not advise either Cantu or Martin that they were required to follow the faculty handbook regarding field trips for the Snake Creek outings. As a result of his failure to follow school rules and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Martin's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. As a result of his failure to follow school rules and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Cantu's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. As a result of his failure to follow school rules, failure to assure those subordinate to him followed rules, and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Barcena's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5637 finding Respondent Martin guilty of misconduct and suspending him from employment through March 31, 1989. That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5639 finding Respondent Cantu guilty of misconduct and suspending him from employment through March 31, 1989. That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5832 finding Respondent Barcena guilty of misconduct and incompetency and dismissing him from employment for just cause. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-5637, 88-5639, AND 88-5832 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraphs 5-7 are accepted to the extent specified in the findings of fact regarding Respondents' knowledge of the faculty handbook; otherwise they are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 8 through 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted as supported by the record but is irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the conclusions reached in these cases. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted. To the extent paragraph 14 set forth Barcena's obligation as SAI, it is accepted; otherwise rejected as the paragraph is unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraphs 15 through 18 are accepted. To the extent that Cantu was told of the handbook's location within the JROTC office paragraph 19 is accepted. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Barcena should have, but did not, make Cantu aware of the handbook requirements. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as multiple facts which may, in part, be accurate but which as set forth are not. See findings in paragraphs 8, 17, 18, 19, 20 for those facts which are relevant to these proceedings. The second, sixth, and eighth sentences of paragraph 26 are rejected as irrelevant, or as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is accepted. Paragraph 29 is accepted. Except as provided in findings of fact paragraphs 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence, argument or irrelevant and immaterial to the specific charges filed in Martin's case. Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent that Barcena knew of the December trip and that no forms were properly completed; otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. That both Barcena and Cantu took time to attend the field trip (albeit on an all too limited basis) indicates that they were aware that the students required some supervision from them and, that Martin would not be there. Paragraph 35 is rejected to the extent that it is a recitation of testimony. See comment to paragraph 34. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 and 38 are rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment on testimony. See findings of fact paragraph 18. Paragraphs 40-42 are accepted. With the clarification that the distances between the principals is not clear from the record (but that all were present), paragraph 43 is accepted. It should be noted that Barcena's testimony regarding his whereabouts during this time has not been deemed credible. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are accepted. Paragraph 46 is rejected as comment or argument. See comment to paragraph 43. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 49, to the extent that the National Guard believed the request was from the Miami Jackson JROTC, it is accepted; as stated in the recommended order since Martin and Cantu did not wilfully intend to violate the rules they did not purposefully mislead the National Guard. Their acts and omissions were out of ignorance and indifference. In these instances, they should have acted differently. Paragraph 50 is accepted to the extent that the instructor filling out the form should have supervised the trip; otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 51, see findings of fact paragraphs 38,39,40; otherwise, rejected as argument, or comment. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 57, the first and last sentences are accepted; the balance is rejected as argument. Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent that Martin violated policies by not following the field trip procedures but Martin did not continuously refuse to follow the rules because he did not know they applied. Martin's error in judgment was not seeking assistance from others and ignoring the dangerous potential to the students (both of which he should have recognized). Otherwise, paragraph 58 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is accepted. To the extent that paragraph 60 recites the reprimand it is accepted. The comments otherwise are reject as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to these proceedings. Paragraph 61 is accepted. Paragraphs 62 and 63 are accepted. To the extent that it states the U.S. Army decertified these instructors effective March 31, 1989, paragraph 64 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 65 is accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT MARTIN'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted to the extent that the trips always occurred on the weekends; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 5, Martin should have been aware of the contents of the handbook, therefore knowledge of it is expected. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent that it includes language from the handbook. Paragraph 7 is accepted but is irrelevant to these proceedings. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 9 is accepted; Barcena, as department head, should have assisted Martin and instructed him to follow the guidelines or should have sought approval for not following the guidelines. The first phrase of paragraph 10 is accepted; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant, argument, or comment. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is accepted. As stated, Martin acted out of ignorance of the regulations, but should, as a competent instructor, been aware of the requirements, or should have personally inquired regarding the requirements, or should have taken reasonable steps to assure the proper supervision and safety of the students who, but for the acts of instructors at Miami Jackson JROTC, could not have gone to Snake Creek to practice/train. Paragraph 14 is accepted; however, Martin's action do warrant a suspension as recommended. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT CANTU'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. It is not, however, conceded that the procedure which had been used was correct, or that Cantu did not have an obligation to inquire further before signing the DF for the September, 1988, trip. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are accepted but do not excuse Cantu's lack of judgment or violation of the school policies. Paragraph 17 is rejected to the extent that Cantu did not complete teaching training and did not receive a personal copy of the handbook, however, he was present during preschool conference, did have access to a handbook, and should have sought guidance before signing the DF. The first sentence of paragraph 18 is accepted otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE RESPONDENT BARCENA'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; Barcena's role at the Miami Jackson JROTC was as SAI not as an Army Lieutenant Colonel. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and argument. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Albert L. Carricarte 2491 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 George Knox 4770 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1460 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a behavioral interventionist with the Palm Beach County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. A behavioral interventionist is a non- instructional employee who works primarily with students receiving services through Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Programs. In addition to monitoring performance and behavior of ESE students, Respondent supervised regular education students who were serving in-house suspensions, performed bus and cafeteria duty, and helped maintain discipline throughout the campus. Respondent also served as an assistant football coach. Respondent received specialized training in order to perform his duties as a behavioral interventionist. He received child development training and attended approximately 12-13 workshops dealing with physical restraint and conflict resolution issues. Respondent is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Student 1, a male, was 17-years old and a junior at Forest Hill. Student 1 is 5'10" tall and weighs approximately 260 pounds. Respondent is 6'3" tall and weighs approximately 250 pounds. Respondent is a former professional football player who routinely lifts weights. On December 11, 2000, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Student 1 was in the area of the outdoor basketball court watching a basketball game. Student 1 had permission to be on the campus of Forest Hill, but he should not have been in the area of the outdoor basketball court. Respondent was in the weight room at Forrest Hill that afternoon demonstrating weight lifting techniques to a group of his football players. After he completed his weight lifting workout, Respondent went to the outdoor basketball court to play basketball. Respondent began playing basketball with a group of students, including students who did not play football. Student 1 could have played if he had wanted to do so. Student 1 was not playing when the acts at issue in this proceeding occurred. Shortly after the game began, Student 1 was standing off the basketball court observing the game when the basketball ball was thrown out of bounds near him. Respondent walked up to Student 1 and said, "why don't you get the ball fat boy?" In response, Student 1 used profane language and was disrespectful towards Respondent. Respondent reacted by tapping Student 1 on the cheek with his open hand. Student 1 asked Respondent why he hit him, but received no response. As Student 1 attempted to walk away, Respondent tapped him again on the back of the head and the two exchanged words. Respondent was not justified in making physical contact with Student 1. Student 1 again addressed Respondent using profane language. Respondent reacted by taking Student 1 to the ground using a technique that he had been trained to use to restrain students. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent placed Student 1 in a chokehold when he took him to the ground. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent did not use a chokehold on Student 1. There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether Student 1 had become aggressive and whether Respondent was merely trying to restrain Student 1. The evidence is clear that Respondent physically restrained Student 1 because Student 1 had been disrespectful towards him, not because Student 1 had become combative. Respondent was not justified in physically restraining Student 1. Student 1 was on the ground when Respondent released him from the restraining hold. As Student 1 was attempting to rise, Respondent hit him with his forearm, which forced Student 1 back to the ground. Witnesses at the basketball court told Student 1 to stay down, but he attempted to rise and saw Respondent in a three-point position typically assumed by football linemen. Almost immediately, Respondent came at Student 1 again and forearmed him back to the ground. Student 1 fell back to the ground, biting his tongue as he went down. He then got up and began cursing. After an interval of a few minutes, Student 1 asked Respondent why he had hit him and began to spit in the general direction of Respondent. Respondent, believing that Student 1 was spitting at him, grabbed him in the area of the neck and forced him against the fence surrounding the basketball court. Respondent told Student 1, "Don't play with me boy, I'm not a kid." Respondent was not justified in that use of force against Student 1. The incident lasted over a period of several minutes. Student 2 was present during the entire incident and Student 3 was present during the latter part of the incident (when Respondent grabbed Student 1 by the neck and forced him against the fence). Both witnesses corroborated Student 1's version of the events. No other student witnesses testified at the final hearing. Student 1 complained that afternoon to a coach named Coleman about what had occurred and he also told his mother later that evening when he got home. Student 1 complained to his mother that his neck hurt and she took him to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a sprained neck. On December 12, 2000, Student 1 and his mother returned to the school and complained to Assistant Principal Mark Sagovac, about what happened the afternoon before. Mr. Sagovac thereafter spoke with Respondent, who did not deny the incident had occurred. Respondent admitted to Mr. Sagovac that he called Student 1 a "fat boy" and asked him to get the ball, which had rolled out of bounds. Respondent further told Mr. Sagovac that he pushed Student 1 to the ground with his forearm and forced Student 1 up against the fence because he felt Student 1 was threatening him. After speaking with Respondent, Mr. Sagovac interviewed Student 1 again and spoke to other witnesses. Some time thereafter a meeting was held between Student 1, his mother, Respondent, Mr. Sagovac, and Assistant Principal Green, who is also an assistant principal assigned to Forest Hill. The incident was discussed again and at one point, Respondent apologized to Student 1 and his mother. After the meeting concluded, Mr. Sagovac issued to Respondent a verbal reprimand with written notation for the actions he took on December 11, 2000. Prior to serving the Respondent with the verbal reprimand with written notation, Sagovac did not consult with his principal or anyone in the Petitioner 's Personnel Office or Office of Professional Standards to determine if he was complying with policy or if he was following accepted personnel practice concerning the contemplated discipline. Mr. Sagovac was not complying with school policy when he issued the verbal reprimand with written notation. Mr. Sagovac did not have the authority to discipline Respondent. Shortly after the conclusion of the meeting attended by Student 1, his mother, Respondent, and Mr. Sagovac, a complaint was made to the school district's police department concerning the December 11, 2000, incident. Based upon the complaint, a criminal investigation into Respondent's actions was initiated. There was no evidence as to the status of any criminal charges presented at the final hearing. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards received information concerning the criminal investigation, which caused it to open its own administrative investigation. After the Office of Professional Standards received the police report and the attached documents, the case was assigned to an investigator. During the Petitioner's investigation, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay and assigned to duty at his home. This assignment became effective February 1, 2001. After Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards completed its investigation, it prepared a report of the incident and, consistent with its rules, submitted the case for review to a case management committee. Case management review is a process whereby approximately a dozen high level employees working for the district meet at the direction of the Superintendent to review pending personnel cases which may result in the suspension of employment without pay or the termination of employment. Respondent's case management committee determined that probable cause existed to sustain the allegation Respondent used inappropriate physical force on the student in question. Once probable cause was found, it further determined that the level of the force used warranted a recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. Based upon the case management committee's recommendation to terminate Respondent for having engaged in inappropriate physical force on a student, Superintendent of Schools Arthur C. Johnson notified Respondent by letter dated May 8, 2001, that he would recommend to the School Board at its meeting to be held May 16, 2001, that Respondent's employment be terminated and that he be suspended without pay pending the completion of the proceedings to terminate his employment. On May 16, 2001, the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. It is the policy of the Petitioner that no employee is to use physical force with a student unless the employee is breaking up a fight, acting in self-defense, or protecting the student from hurting him or herself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment contract with Petitioner should be terminated for violation of School Board policies.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the local school board responsible for hiring, firing and overseeing all employees working for the School Board and/or within the Lee County Public School system (also called the "School District" herein). Respondent is an employee of the School Board, serving as an electronics field technician in the School Board's maintenance department. Respondent has worked for the School Board off and on since 1996, when he was a school bus driver. He has been an electronics technician since 2000. In that position, Respondent oversees the maintenance and repair of clocks, alarms, intercoms, scoreboards, sound and lighting systems, burglary systems, and the like for all schools within the School District. Respondent has never received any form of discipline from the School Board. His record is clear, and he has been commended for his work. His work ethic was viewed by others as consistent with that of similarly-situated employees (although Respondent may take more breaks than others). School District maintenance workers work an eight-hour work day, commencing at 7:00 a.m. (per provisions of the SPALC Contract and Collective Bargaining Agreement). Each worker is expected to arrive at the maintenance area on Canal Street (hereinafter "Canal Street") and be ready to commence work by 7:00 a.m., each morning. The work day generally starts with a briefing of sorts to make sure each worker is aware of his/her tasks for the day. After the briefing, workers pick up tools and supplies from various locations around the Canal Street area and then proceed to the first school site requiring performance of an assigned task. A work day for Respondent could involve driving to any one of the numerous school campuses within the School Board's jurisdiction. Workers are given 30 minutes for lunch each day, including the time it takes to drive to and from the lunch site. In addition, workers are allowed two 15-minute breaks, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. Again, the break time includes the time taken to drive to a break site, if the employee decides to take a break at other than the place he/she is working at that time. Employees are not permitted to do personal business or make unauthorized stops during the work day without prior permission from a supervisor. Respondent is a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve and currently holds the rank/level of E5. He attends regular weekend drills each month and also spends two weeks each year on temporary active duty. Respondent has been in the reserves throughout his tenure with the School Board. There has never been an issue between Petitioner and Respondent concerning Respondent's military status or his taking two weeks each summer to attend to his military duties. Respondent is proud of his military service, as evidenced by the fact that he wore his military uniform during both days of the final hearing.1 In May 2008, Respondent spent 17 days on active duty, serving in Bahrain. This was Respondent's active duty requirement for calendar year 2008. However, he then volunteered for an additional period of active duty in July 2008. This second active duty stint was done in furtherance of his military career and at the suggestion of a superior officer. It was strictly voluntary, but Respondent felt somewhat compelled to "volunteer" based on his superior's comments. Respondent then did his second active duty stint beginning June 28, 2008, and ending July 27, 2008. This period of time coincided with the maintenance department's busiest time for its electronics technicians. The maintenance department annually used the time in between school terms to get various maintenance items completed while it would be the least disruptive to students in the classrooms. The summer period is used to "clean up" things that remain pending from the school year. It is clear that Respondent's supervisors were not happy that Respondent had volunteered to be absent during this busy time, but Respondent was allowed to go on active duty anyway. This left the School Board short-handed as to its needed electronics technicians for that period of time. Respondent's supervisor expressed concern to Respondent about this second period of active duty, specifically that it was occurring during the summer break. Respondent recognized the strain this additional leave put on his co-workers and apologized for that fact. Respondent assured his supervisor it would not happen again. Upon his return from the voluntary active duty, Respondent was told that he was being placed on "suspension of driving privileges," meaning that he could not drive School Board vehicles until further notice. This suspension was based on information gleaned from review of data generated by a new tracking system being used in School Board maintenance vehicles (which will be discussed below). Respondent is of the opinion that the suspension was some sort of retaliation for his having gone on the second active duty tour during June and July. The Global Positioning System--Background Beginning in May 2008, the School Board decided to install global positioning system (GPS) devices in all of its maintenance vehicles. The installation began with 50 randomly selected vehicles of the 150-vehicle fleet. The purpose of the GPS devices was to track School Board vehicles and assure that all vehicles were being utilized properly and in accordance with School Board policies. This measure was prompted by repeated complaints from the public about maintenance vehicles being seen involved in non-school activities or at non-school locations. The GPS system in Respondent's maintenance vehicle was installed on May 22, 2008. The signal from the GPS was instantaneous, but required calibration and installation of certain software before it could be effectively utilized. The GPS became fully functional on June 20, 2008, at 10:07 a.m. The GPS system tracked the location, speed, and duration of stops for the vehicle. This data was maintained on a computer server which could print maps showing a vehicle's movements on any given day or time. The maps could be annotated with the vehicle's speed, length of stay at any one location, and actual driving route. On or about June 27, 2008, William G. Moore, director of School Support for the School Board, was being given a course on the use of the new GPS system and how it worked. During his training, Moore randomly selected some vehicles to review, solely for the purpose of ascertaining how the system tracked and recorded information. One of the vehicles Moore randomly selected was vehicle No. 423, which turned out to be Respondent's work van. Moore did not know Respondent personally and did not know to which of the 150 or so School Board vehicles any one person was assigned. Moore then selected June 26, 2008, randomly as a record to review as part of his training. The June 26, 2008, record for vehicle No. 423 immediately raised red flags in Moore's mind. He observed that the vehicle was at a non-school site for over three hours (although it was later determined to be a training site and a legitimate stop). The vehicle was also shown entering a residential community (although again it was later determined that the driver had permission for that trip). However, based on his initial determination that something was amiss and not having any explanation for those instances, Moore decided to more fully examine the route history for vehicle No. 423. First, he determined that this vehicle was assigned to Respondent. (The vehicle will hereinafter be referred to as the work van.) Moore's further investigation turned up a number of questionable stops and trips by the work van during the period June 20 through June 27, 2008. The findings of his investigation will be set forth in pertinent part below on a day-by-day basis, coupled with explanations from Respondent as to each day's activities. Friday, June 20, 2008 At 10:07 a.m. (when the GPS first started working), the work van was departing from Ft. Myers High School ("Ft. Myers High") en route to Estero High School ("Estero"). Upon arrival at Estero, the van remained parked for five minutes, then left the parking lot and drove around the building to the front entrance of Estero for a period of one minute. Leaving Estero, the work van headed to a residential neighborhood known as the Bimini Circle Subdivision, where it stayed for 11 minutes. The work van then proceeded to a 7-11 Store where it remained for 35 minutes. The next stop was back at Estero where the work van remained for one hour and 46 minutes. At 2:00 p.m., the work van left Estero, stopped briefly at the 7-11 Store, then returned to Canal Street at 2:59 p.m. The School Board perceived several violations of policy gleaned from the information on the GPS for the work van during the June 20, 2008, work day: First, the work van was at Estero for a total of two hours and 13 minutes on this date. The total time at Ft. Myers High for this date is not detailed by the GPS, but would presumably be approximately two and a half hours, i.e., allotting time for driving from Canal Street up until the GPS turned on at 10:07 a.m. Respondent's daily activity log indicates five hours at Estero and three hours at Ft. Myers High. Respondent took two unauthorized stops at a store, presumably for personal reasons, and then spent 11 minutes at a residence during work hours. Respondent took in excess of 30 minutes for his lunch hour (35 minutes at a location, plus an undisclosed amount of time driving to and from that location). Respondent took a longer route back to Canal Street than necessary, presumably wasting time. (Employees were expected to work the entire day, then return to Canal Street precisely at 3:00 p.m. A 30-minute debriefing session, return of tools, etc., would occur and then employees would be released from duty at 3:30 p.m. Employees were told repeatedly NOT to return to Canal Street until 3:00 p.m.) Respondent explained his actions and refuted the School Board's concerns as follows: Upon leaving Canal Street that morning, Respondent went directly to Ft. Myers High and remained there until 10:07 a.m. The rest of his day, approximately five hours, was dedicated to work at Estero, but included travel time, breaks, and lunch. The two hours and 13 minutes actually at Estero should be supplemented by driving time to the school from Ft. Myers, driving time to his breaks and lunch, driving time to and from his personal errand, and driving time back to Canal Street. Respondent remembers asking for and receiving permission to stop by his wife's house (the residence in the Bimini Circle Subdivision) to retrieve his wallet. The stops at 7-11 Stores were for lunch and two allowable breaks. The longer route back to Canal Street was taken in order to avoid an accident on the shorter route. During June of 2008, technicians would fill out their daily work logs using rounded estimates of time. They made no attempt to precisely state exact periods of time spent at any one job site. Rather, the daily logs were a very general statement of which job sites had been involved in the employee's work that day. (This procedure has subsequently changed, but was extant at all times relevant hereto.) It is clear Respondent took a longer than allowable lunch break on this date. Further, the time taken for breaks, if drive time was included, was in excess of the allotted amounts. It is clear Respondent was actually at Estero for only about half the time recorded on the daily work log. However, under the procedures in place at that time, the work log time entry was not dispositive of his actual time at the site. Monday, June 23, 2008 On this date, the School Board gleaned the following violations of policies from its review of the GPS log: Respondent was at Estero for two hours and nine minutes, but his daily work log indicates six hours at Estero and two hours at Gateway Elementary. The work van made stops at McDonalds and Bank of America on the way to Estero, then at the Bimini Circle address for eight and a half minutes after leaving Estero. Petitioner says any stops for personal business are strictly prohibited while in a School Board vehicle. After a 47-minute stop at Dairy Queen, the work van then proceeded to Gateway where it stayed for approximately two hours. Upon leaving Gateway, the work van stopped at Home Depot--an unauthorized stop--for about 18 minutes. Respondent provides the following explanation and rebuttal concerning the School Board's concerns for that day: Again, his work sheet indicates the correct amount of time actually at Gateway. The remainder of his day, including all travel, breaks, and lunch, was allocated on this time sheet to Estero no matter how long he was actually there. The stops at McDonalds and Bank of America were simply to allow his co-worker (Sheryl Reed) to get an iced tea and to get money for lunch. Respondent maintains that these types of stops were not specifically prohibited and were common practice. Respondent maintains the stop at his wife's house was his break time (although a stop at McDonalds and Bank of America had already occurred that morning). The 47-minute lunch hour was caused by Respondent simply losing track of time. That is, he admits that it was a longer lunch break than allowed, but it was not done intentionally. The stop at Home Depot was to obtain a coaxial wire needed for the Estero job, but the wire was not available. Employees are allowed to shop at local retail stores to acquire equipment or supplies not available through the School Board. However, all such purchases must be made by way of a purchase card (P-Card) so that purchases can be tracked. There is no P-Card receipt for the Home Depot visit on this date, but Respondent maintains that is because no purchase was made. That is, the coaxial wire he was looking for was not available. Reed said that Respondent made personal purchases from Home Depot and Lowe's on occasion during the summer of 2008 (because he was in the process of remodeling his house). He had purchased floor tiles and other items a couple of times a week that summer. However, she cannot remember whether he purchased anything on that particular date. Respondent admits that he did make purchases of home improvement products during work hours and transported the products in the work van to his house. He does not remember making any such stops for purposes during the week of June 20 through 27, 2008. Tuesday, June 24, 2008 On this date, Respondent's daily work log indicates three hours spent at Gateway and five hours spent at Island Coast.2 The GPS indicates the work van was at Gateway for three hours and at Island Coast for one hour and 40 minutes. The School Board also found the following other policy violations: A stop at Weaver's Corner for 36 minutes and 40 seconds, presumably a long lunch made longer by travel time to and from the lunch venue. An unauthorized visit for eight minutes and 40 seconds at a bank. A visit to a gas station for eight minutes, then a short drive to another gas station for five minutes. Respondent provides the following explanation and rebuttal to the School Board's findings: As before, the extended period of time for the Island Coast job site includes travel, breaks, and lunch. However, it would have been more accurate on this day to have split the two job sites equally. The stops at the gas stations were intentionally made so as not to return to Canal Street before the allotted 3:00 p.m., return time. Respondent does not provide any explanation for the longer than allowable lunch break. Wednesday, June 25, 2008 There were three stops on this date listed on Respondent's daily work log: Island Coast (4 hours), Dunbar Community (2 hours), and Ft. Myers High (2 hours). The GPS indicates the work van was at Island Coast for two hours and 11 minutes; at Dunbar Community for 11 minutes and 20 seconds; at Villas Elementary for one hour and 14 minutes; then at Ft. Myers High for four minutes and 40 seconds. Other perceived policy violations included: A short stop at a bank in the Wal-Mart parking lot upon leaving Canal Street. A lunch stop of 42 minutes and 30 seconds, not counting driving time to and from the restaurant. Another stop at Bank of America for in excess of ten minutes. A short, seven and a half-minute stop at a shopping center. Respondent provided the following in rebuttal and response to the School Board's perceived violations of policy: The quick stops at the banks were not prohibited and were common practice. They may have been part of Respondent's break time on that date. The lunch hour ran over, but was not excessive or intentional. It may have also included part of a break he never took that day. Thursday, June 26, 2008 This is the date that Moore initially reviewed in his training session that raised red flags concerning Respondent's time issues. On this date, the daily work log indicates seven hours in training and one hour at Villas Elementary. The School Board's concerns about this date are set forth above, but would also include: An authorized trip during the lunch hour for Respondent to retrieve a lap top which was being delivered by overnight delivery (so the computer would not be left sitting on the front porch). This trip which took approximately 18 minutes, of which 30 seconds was spent stopped at his house. Respondent also took time for lunch before returning to the training site. A circuitous, out-of-the-way route between the training site and the next job site (Villas Elementary). A short stop at a 7-11 Store and then a longer-than- usual route back to Canal Street. Respondent's explanation and rebuttal to the School Board's concerns were as follows: Respondent had permission to make a quick visit to his home during the lunch hour to see why his home alarm had activated. (He does not remember anything about a lap top or a need to retrieve it.) Respondent says that in the 30 seconds his work van was at the house, he exited the vehicle, walked to the house, unlocked the door and entered, turned off the alarm (which had been activated by his dog, who had escaped from his kennel), put his dog back in its kennel, re-set the alarm and left. Respondent was able to do his personal errand and get to the restaurant and eat lunch with his co-workers within the time (one hour) allotted for lunch that day by the trainer. The circuitous route was for the purpose of delivering some money to his daughter at her school. She was waiting for him outside, and he didn't even have to stop the work van to hand off the money. Rather, his daughter reached out and grabbed the money as he rolled past. The stop at the 7-11 Store was to use the rest room. Respondent's testimony concerning the stop at his house is not entirely believable. It would seem to take more than 30 seconds to accomplish the things that he did. However, inasmuch as he made the stop and was still able to join his co-workers in time for lunch, the reason for his home visit is immaterial. Also, the rolling delivery of money to his daughter is very unusual, but there is no evidence that the exchange did not take place in that fashion. Friday, June 27, 2008 This day's daily work log indicates three work sites: Dunbar Middle School (4 hours), Ft. Myers High (2 hours), and Cypress High School (Cypress High)(2 hours). The GPS indicates 33 minutes and 50 seconds at Dunbar; one hour and 47 minutes at Ft. Myers High; and five minutes and 50 seconds at Cypress High. The work van then went back to Dunbar for one hour, 51 minutes and 30 seconds. The School Board's other concerns about time and travel on this date are as follows: After leaving Canal Street that morning, the work van made stops at McDonalds for three minutes and at Lowe's for 15 minutes. There is a stop of one hour and eight minutes at a shopping plaza, presumably a long lunch hour. Respondent's response to the allegations of policy violations for this day are as follows: The McDonalds visit was again an allowable stop (as he understood the policies) for his assistant to get an iced tea. The Lowe's stop was for the purpose of getting concrete anchors needed for a School Board job, but none were available and so no purchase was made on the P-Card. The long lunch hour was just that; he was not thinking clearly because this was just one day prior to going on active duty and he was preoccupied with those thoughts. The extra driving time was due to the fact that after leaving Dunbar, Respondent was called on the radio to go back there for an emergency job. The daily work logs do not correspond exactly with Respondent's work day because that was not the purpose of the logs. The logs were, at that time, simply an indicator of which schools had been visited on any given day. There was no effort by anyone to be exact or precise with the times recorded on the daily logs. The daily logs are essentially of no value in determining where an employee might have been at any point in time on any given day. There is no way to reconcile the GPS times with the daily work logs. Each employee is expected to work a full day. If the number of tasks assigned during the morning meetings at Canal Street did not fill a technician's day, he/she was expected to locate additional work or do work on an on-going project to fill the day.3 Nonetheless, it is often difficult to coordinate a day's activities to make the assignments equate to the exact hours and minutes in a work day. A large part of an employee's time during the work day is spent driving his/her vehicle. The driving time is supposed to be factored into the time spent on a particular work site. Thus, if it took 30 minutes to get to a work site, that time would be added to the time spent actually at the site. Then, when driving to a subsequent work site, the drive time would be assigned to that next site, etc. Employees are on their honor to take breaks and lunch only when allowed and for the time allotted. There is no time clock, so each person must attempt to keep time themselves so as to honor the allotted times. This is often difficult due to slow service at a restaurant, inability to take breaks at a particular time, or other factors. The GPS system has provided the School Board with an effective tool for monitoring its employees' movements and location. However, at all times relevant hereto, the GPS system was in its infancy and the School Board was still learning how to assimilate and read the data generated by the system. Thus, Respondent's activities from June 20 through June 27, 2008, were examined in a way no other employee's had been looked at heretofore. It is, therefore, hard to make a comparative determination of Respondent's actions versus an established norm. Nonetheless, the School Board's findings are supported by the GPS data. That is, the daily work logs are not consistent with time actually spent at particular job sites. Respondent's lunch breaks exceed the allotted 30-minute time period almost every day that was examined. There are stops at local establishments that are not part of the employee's work duties. Some of the routes taken by an employee are not the shortest routes, although it is impossible to ascertain whether they are the best routes based on other extraneous factors. The time spent on breaks, versus travel time, is hard to ascertain with any degree of certainty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Lee County School Board, rescinding the notice of termination and imposing a less stringent penalty, e.g., a period of probation, a letter of reprimand and/or some remedial training, against Respondent, Christopher Rasmussen. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of June, 2009.
