Findings Of Fact Between December 6, 1994, and October 15, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver and, subsequently, as a materials handling technician who delivered textbooks and supplies. His performance evaluations for that work were satisfactory or better. Prior to October 15, 1995, a teacher aide position became vacant at H. L. Johnson Elementary School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. This vacancy was in the special education classroom taught by Harriet Lurie. Although he had no experience or training for this type work, Respondent was hired to fill this vacancy. Respondent began this employment on October 15, 1995. The students in this classroom require constant supervision and assistance. Ms. Lurie, an experienced ESE teacher, the Respondent, and one other teacher aide were expected to provide the care and supervision required by these students. Respondent and Ms. Lurie were unable to develop an effective working relationship. The conflicts between Respondent and Ms. Lurie escalated, despite the efforts of the principal, Penelope Lopez, to encourage them to work together. December 15, 1995, was the last day of school prior the Christmas holidays. Following an incident between Respondent and Ms. Lurie earlier that day, Respondent appeared in Ms. Lopez's office and requested that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's class to any other available position. Ms. Lopez explained to Respondent that there were no other available positions. Because he was adamant about not returning to Ms. Lurie's classroom, Ms. Lopez agreed during that meeting to let Respondent perform custodial duties for the remainder of the day. January 2, 1996, was the first day of school following the Christmas holidays. On that date, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office and met with her prior to the beginning of school. Respondent again asked that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent became upset when Ms. Lopez denied his request for transfer and thereafter gave him a written reprimand. The reprimand, which accurately reflects efforts by Ms. Lopez to resolve the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I have had conferences with you on December 6, 12 and 15, 1995 and numerous other impromptu meetings in which we discussed your concerns, my concerns and conflicts you were having with the teacher and the other teacher aide in the K-1B classroom (Ms. Lurie's classroom). The students in this classroom need consistent supervision in a warm nurturing environment. I am very unhappy with the conflict going on between you and the teacher and you and the other aide, at times in front of the students . . . There appears to be no effective working relationship between you and these associates . . . * * * 6. As a teacher-aide (sic), you report to the teacher in the K-1B class and work under her direct supervision. You are expected to follow directions and not argue with her . . . I have requested at each meeting with you to work cooperatively with the teacher and your coworker to solve problems or enhance the classroom setting and work as a team. I had to remove you from the classroom on December 15, 1995 due to a conflict with the teacher. Since you have not heeded my previous advice, I'm presenting you with this written reprimand as disciplinary action. I expect your behavior to improve immediately in all of these areas. Should you fail to improve your attendance and abide by established and published rules and duties of your position, you will subject yourself to further discipline. After Ms. Lopez gave Respondent the written reprimand, on January 2, 1996, she instructed him to return to his duties in Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent refused this instruction and left the school campus. Respondent did not return to the school campus on January 2, 1996. Respondent had seven days of sick leave available for his use as of January 2, 1996. Further, he qualified for additional unpaid leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), 29 USC Sections 2611 et seq. Respondent did not requested nor had he been given any type of authorized leave for January 2, 1996. Respondent asserts that the School Board has no grounds to terminate his employment for his conduct on January 2, 1996, because he left school to go visit his doctor. The assertion that he left campus on January 2, 1996, because he was sick or in need of a doctor is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this proceeding. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that after he left the school campus on January 2, 1996, Respondent spent the balance of the day attempting to contact district administrators to complain about the letter of reprimand he had received. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent did not seek medical attention on January 2, 1996. 1/ Respondent disobeyed Ms. Lopez's clear and direct instructions on January 2, 1996, and he willfully neglected his official responsibilities. This action was not justified by a need for medical attention. On January 3, 1996, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office at approximately 7:45 a.m. Ms. Lopez told Respondent that he was needed in Ms. Lurie's class and told him to report to duty. Respondent replied that he was going to the doctor and left school campus. When Ms. Lopez asked why he had not gone to the doctor when he was away from school on January 2, Respondent replied that he had been too busy attempting to do something about the reprimand he had been issued. Respondent was entitled to use sick leave to visit the doctor on January 3, 1996, and he was entitled to use paid sick leave, to the extent of its availability, between January 3, 1996, and the time of his tests on January 16, 1996. Good Samaritan Primary Care is a group of doctors who have associated for the practice of medicine. Leonard A. Sukienik, D.O., and Karen Kutikoff, M.D., are employed by that group practice. On January 3, 1996, Respondent was examined by Dr. Sukienik. Following that examination, Dr. Sukienik scheduled certain medical tests for Respondent to be conducted January 16, 1996. Dr. Sukienik wrote the following note dated January 3, 1996: To whom it may concern, Mr. Frank Sedor is a patient in my office and is noted to have stress related anxiety attacks with chest pain symptoms. This stress may be related to his job and Mr. Sedor may benefit from time off from work. Respondent returned to Johnson Elementary and met with Ms. Lopez at approximately 1:30 p.m. Respondent gave Ms. Lopez the note written by Dr. Sukienik. When Ms. Lopez asked Respondent to return to work, he informed her that he was not going to return to work until after the tests scheduled for January 16, 1996, had been completed. Respondent thereafter left the school campus. Respondent did not request any type of leave on January 3, 1996. Prior to her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez did not intend to recommend that Respondent's employment be terminated because she hoped that the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie could be resolved. After her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez sent a memorandum to Louis Haddad, Jr., the coordinator of Petitioner's Employee Relations office in which she requested that further disciplinary action be taken against Respondent for his refusal to report to his classroom as instructed on January 2, 1996, and for thereafter leaving the school site. The School Board, based on the superintendent's recommendation, voted to terminate Respondent's employment at its meeting of February 7, 1996, on grounds of insubordination and willful neglect of duty based on Respondent's conduct on January 2, 1996. 2/ The School Board is not seeking to terminate Respondent's employment for conduct after January 2, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. The final order should also terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher aide. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent’s employment as a teacher, without pay, for five days.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The School Board hired Respondent in 2004 as a teacher at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, a public school in Miami-Dade County. Since the 2009 school year, and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed at David K. Lawrence, Jr., K-8 Center (“David Lawrence”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, pursuant to a professional services contract.1 At all times relevant to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. The collective bargaining agreement provides that: “Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes.” 1 Respondent is no longer a teacher at David Lawrence. However, she is still employed by the School Board as a teacher at another school. The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension of Respondent occurred during the 2018-2019 school year, at which time Respondent was a special education teacher at David Lawrence, teaching fourth and fifth grade autistic students in the school’s “ESE” special education program. At that time, Mary Kate Parton was principal; Dr. Charlene Olicker was assistant principal; Elvia Nunez was a classroom paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom; and Jason Hocherman was a one-to-one paraprofessional assigned to another classroom. The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension of Respondent is contained in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges.2 Allegations Involving Ms. Nunez on February 15, 2019 The School Board alleges in paragraph 16 of the Notice of Specific Charges that “[o]n February 15, 2019, a student under Respondent’s supervision hit Ms. Nunez in the face causing her face to swell and causing Ms. Nunez to feel nauseous and dizzy.” According to the School Board, the incident “occurred in Respondent’s presence, however, Respondent prevented Ms. Nunez from obtaining medical treatment, did not assist Ms. Nunez with any treatment and prevented Ms. Nunez from reporting it to the administration.” The School Board further alleges Respondent “failed to write a Student Case Management Form (“SCM”) on the student for his actions toward Ms. Nunez.” On the day of the incident, Ms. Nunez wrote a statement detailing her version of the events. In her statement, Ms. Nunez explained she was in the classroom when a female student hit Ms. Nunez on her face with her elbow 2 At hearing, the School Board abandoned the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Notice of Specific Charges related to a purported incident on February 22, 2019. Accordingly, no findings are made with respect to the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Notice of Specific Charges. and fist. Ms. Nunez called the office on the radio for assistance, and Dr. Olicker and Ms. Mejia came to the room to assist her. Ms. Mejia stayed with Ms. Nunez until Respondent finished what she was doing. They all took the students to lunch. Ms. Nunez stayed outside the cafeteria and told another assistant principal what had happened. In the meantime, another student started running behind the bathroom in the cafeteria, and Ms. Nunez and other employees went to catch the student. Ms. Nunez later returned to the classroom and told another staff member she was not feeling well. Ms. Nunez then went to the library and office and told Dr. Olicker she “was feeling dizzy.” Dr. Olicker called “911,” and Ms. Nunez was transported to the hospital by fire rescue. Respondent did not witness a student hit Ms. Nunez and she had no knowledge of the incident at the time. Respondent did not prevent Ms. Nunez from obtaining medical treatment and she did not prevent Ms. Nunez from reporting the incident to administration. Respondent did not write an SCM referral for a student because she did not witness the incident. There is no School Board rule or policy requiring Respondent to write an SCM referral on a student for an incident she did not witness or have knowledge of at the time.3 In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not engage in any of the conduct as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Notice of Specific Charges, which constitutes misconduct in office. Allegations Involving J.H. on February 25, 2019 In paragraph 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board alleges that “[o]n February 25, 2019, Jason Hocherman (‘Mr. Hocherman’), a 3 In any event, Dr. Olicker submitted an SCM referral on the student. paraprofessional at Lawrence K-8 while in the school’s hallway[,] observed J.H. in the hallway without Respondent.” J.H. was a student in Respondent’s class who frequently and spontaneously ran from the classroom. According to Respondent, J.H. would run as often as 12 to 15 times a day. J.H. was well known as a “runner” by Mr. Hocherman, other staff members, and the school’s administrators.4 On February 25, 2019, Mr. Hocherman was leaving his assigned classroom for the day at around 3:00 p.m., when students were also being dismissed for the day. At that time, he observed J.H. unsupervised standing in the corner of the first floor interior hallway of the building by the doors leading into the main lobby of the school. Mr. Hocherman does not know how long J.H. was standing in the hallway without adult supervision. Mr. Hocherman asked J.H. if he was alright, but J.H. did not respond. A few minutes after Mr. Hocherman first observed J.H., Respondent came upon the scene. According to Mr. Hocherman, J.H. became agitated or scared upon Respondent’s arrival on the scene. Mr. Hocherman tried to calm J.H. down, but J.H. took off running towards the stairwell in the middle of the hallway. J.H. often ran to the third floor. Respondent told J.H. she was not going to chase after him, hoping that would stop him from running. J.H. ignored Respondent and ran up the stairs to the third floor landing of the stairwell. Respondent and Mr. Hocherman followed in pursuit of J.H. Mr. Hocherman got to J.H. first, was able to calm him down, and took him by the hand directly to the bus loop in front of the school to get on his bus to go home. The evidence presented at the hearing did not establish that J.H., a known runner, was ever in any danger. 4 Notably, J.H. was the student who ran behind the bathroom in the cafeteria on February 15, 2019. J.H. got on the bus, went home, and did not suffer any injuries as a result of the incident. Under the particular facts of this case, Respondent’s conduct was not inappropriate. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that on February 25, 2019, Mr. Hocherman “observed J.H. in the hallway without Respondent,” as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges. However, such conduct does not constitute misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order rescinding the suspension of Respondent, Linda A. Moreau, with full back pay. 5 In its Proposed Recommended Order, the School Board argues that Respondent violated School Board Policy 3213 by failing to “immediately report a harmful situation to the administration.” However, the alleged conduct in paragraph 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges is not based on a failure to report; rather, the alleged conduct is solely that J.H. was observed unsupervised in the hallway. Accordingly, any contention by the School Board that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office or violated School Board policies based on a failure to report J.H. being observed unsupervised in the hallway, is beyond the scope of the charge. Even if the School Board’s contention is not beyond the scope of the charge, however, J.H. was never in any danger or harmed, and, therefore, any failure of Respondent to report the incident does not constitute a violation of School Board Policy 3213 and does not constitute misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Michele Lara Jones, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the two Respondents, or either of them, should be assigned to the Petitioner's school program.
Findings Of Fact During the 1989/90 school year, Michel Alvarez and his brother, Maikel Alvarez, were both students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Michel was in the ninth grade and Maikel was in the tenth grade. During the 1989/90 school year, Michel and Maikel Alvarez were students in the industrial arts class of a teacher named Morton Bernstein. On May 1, 1990, during the change of classes after second period, Michel Alvarez approached another student in his second period industrial arts class, Benny Rodriguez, and asked why the latter had been pointing at him. A verbal dispute ensued as to whether there had been any pointing and, if so, what anyone was going to do about it. Thereupon, Michel tackled Benny around the waist with enough force to knock Benny to the floor. Both boys fell to the floor, Benny beneath on his back, Michel above, facing Benny and holding onto him. They struggled on the ground. As they struggled, a large crowd of other students quickly gathered. During the course of the struggle, Benny Rodriguez was kicked or stomped several times. As a result of the blows he received during the struggle, Benny Rodriguez suffered a broken nose and several bruised ribs. 1/ Maikel Alvarez was nearby when he was informed that his brother was in trouble. Maikel pushed his way through the crowd and worked his way towards the middle. Maikel pulled his brother off of Benny Rodriguez and Maikel and Michel Alvarez moved away from the crowd of students. Maikel and Michel Alvarez both went to their respective third period classes. During third period, both of them were called to the Principal's office. At about the same time that Maikel Alvarez went to help his brother, a teacher named Morton Bernstein became aware of the crowd and the struggle and went to break it up. When Bernstein got to the scene of the fracas, the struggle was over and Benny Rodriguez was on the floor, obviously injured. Bernstein assisted Benny and called the school security office. A school security officer accompanied Benny to the main office. Donald Hoecherl, an assistant principal, was present when the security officer brought Benny to the office. Hoecherl put Benny in a room and asked if he was okay. Benny was still bleeding but was coherent. Hoecherl questioned Benny to find out what happened. He then summoned Michel and Maikel to the office where he questioned them. He also called the parents of the students involved, the police, and the school's special investigative unit. Hoecherl had the students write down what happened after they had given him a verbal account. Benny was released to his parent. He was taken to his doctor who then sent him to the hospital. He remained hospitalized for two days and had an operation for the fracture to his nose. Mrs. Alvarez arrived and Hoecherl explained, through an interpreter, what had happened based on the account he had gotten from Bernstein and the students. During the discussion with Mrs. Alvarez and her sons, Maikel appeared to have a poor attitude and he did not appear to be taking what had happened seriously. Mrs. Alvarez told Maikel to straighten up in his chair. She then slapped him. Maikel pushed his mother against the wall. Hoecherl and the police officer who had been called to the school had to restrain Maikel from further physical confrontation toward his mother. Maikel was placed in handcuffs. Hoecherl told Mrs. Alvarez that he was suspending both Michel and Maikel for ten days and recommending an expulsion with a waiver to opportunity school. He made certain that School Board rules and procedures for according the Alvarezes their due process rights were followed. Hoecherl prepared and mailed home the Notice of Suspension forms for Maikel and Michel which narrated the reasons for the disciplinary actions and the right to a school level hearing. Michel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the suspension was for battery and kicking another student. Maikel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the action was being taken for battery on a student and parent. Both forms indicated that these rule infractions were Group III violations. The School District's Code of Student Conduct provides that Group III violations warrant expulsion from school. Bernstein had both Michel and Maikel as students in his industrial arts classes. Michel required more attention than the rest of the students. Bernstein described Michel's behavior as disruptive of the regular program and also indicated that Michel's behavior created safety concerns because of the use of power tools in his class. Michel was not passing Bernstein's course because of excessive absences and poor effort. Maikel did little or no work in Bernstein's class. He sat around and talked to friends and did not complete projects. His absences were excessive and he was not passing. Carol McKenny taught Michel math. Michel was disruptive, absent excessively, and was making no effort. He required more attention than her other students, which made it difficult to teach. She talked to Michel and to Mrs. Alvarez about her concerns in an attempt to help him, yet this produced no noticeable improvements in his behavior, attendance, or effort. James McKiernan taught Maikel biology. Maikel was failing this subject because he was making no effort and was frequently absent. McKiernan spoke with Maikel and Mrs Alvarez, but Maikel did not improve. Henry Adams was Michel's and Maikel's guidance counselor. He talked to both students during the year in an attempt to help them. He discussed their chronic absences which were in excess of the state mandatory attendance requirements. He discussed the relationship of attendance to grades. He discussed their behavior in class. He talked to Mrs. Alvarez about their absences and poor progress in school. Adams, who is knowledgeable of the programs offered by the district's opportunity schools, is of the opinion that both students would benefit from such placement because of the smaller class sizes, more structured environment, and increased counseling services. Hoecherl conducted a review of both students' school records files prior to making his final recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent for Alternative Education. His review included grade reports, ability test scores, discipline reports, and attendance information. Michel has average ability and was capable of making B's and C's; however, he failed six of eight courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel has average to slightly below average ability, but was capable of average work in the courses he was taking; however, he failed seven of nine courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel had previously been suspended for five days for fighting. This was a Group III expellable offense. Maikel also had been assigned to several Saturday schools in an attempt to help him remediate the work he had missed when he cut classes on approximately 20 occasions. Saturday school is a District- approved method for helping a student improve his academic performance through a tutorial program. American High School had provided both Michel and Maikel with a variety of student services, including counseling by Adams, Saturday school for Maikel, teacher conferences, and parental contact by the administration. Despite the school's efforts, both students were not successful in the regular program at American High School. An opportunity school assignment would assist Michel and Maikel because it would provide greater structure, smaller class sizes and increased student services. This educational alternative program would afford both students an opportunity to become more successful in school. Maikel is currently enrolled in the opportunity school. He is doing well in his classes and has improved his attendance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that Michel Alvarez and Maikel Alvarez are properly assigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior School-North, an opportunity school located in Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County Florida, this 11th day of December, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e), with respect to her treatment of students in her sixth-grade class and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, the documentary evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: Respondent, Donna Faber-Soukey, is a licensed educator in the State of Florida, who holds Florida Educator Certificate 840010, covering the areas of elementary education and prekindergarten primary education, valid through June 30, 2015. Respondent has also obtained certification in the areas of K-12 health and K-12 physical education in the State of New York, and has a master’s degree in health administration. Respondent began teaching at Old Kings Elementary School (Old Kings) in the Flagler County School District in approximately 2004. Through the spring of 2010, she taught kindergarten and/or first grade, and received highly effective, exemplary, or very effective (depending on the rating tool) evaluation ratings each school year. In August 2010, Respondent’s husband suffered a significant health emergency that required her absence from school. As a result of events that are not the subject of these proceedings, Respondent did not teach at Old Kings for the 2010- 2011 school year, but returned in the fall of 2011. During this time, there were many issues in Respondent’s life that were causing extra stress for her, including the significant illnesses of several close family members, as well as her own diagnosis for depression. Nancy Willis was the new principal at Old Kings in the fall of 2011. While it was her first year at Old Kings, she had many years of experience as a principal. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, she needed a sixth-grade inclusion teacher and understood that Respondent had taught upper grades before. She needed a veteran teacher, so placed Respondent in the sixth-grade inclusion classroom. Respondent was not comfortable with this placement and made her concerns known to Ms. Willis. Despite her request to be assigned to a first-grade or kindergarten class, she remained assigned to the sixth-grade class. Respondent found the class to be difficult to control, and admitted at hearing that she was “not on her game.” As noted above, there were other events taking place in Respondent’s life that effected Respondent professionally. However, any reference to other issues that were present is supplied only for context or for mitigation purposes. This Recommended Order deals only with those factual issues specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. At the beginning of the school year, Respondent outlined the classroom rules and procedures that she expected the children to follow in her classroom. Students admitted at hearing that those rules were reasonable. One of the established rules was that when students came into the room, they were supposed to get the materials they would need for class out of their backpacks and were to place their backpacks in cubbies in the back of the room. This rule was important to Respondent, because she considered it to be essential for maintaining a safe environment in the classroom. However, it was common for students in the class to ignore this rule, and leave their backpacks on the floor next to their desks. Respondent would remind students of the need to place the backpacks in their assigned cubbies, but to no avail. At some point, Respondent started taking the backpacks found on the floor and placing them outside the classroom. While she testified that she simply put them outside the door, several students testified credibly that she would sometimes toss the backpacks, without regard for what may be inside them. Specifically, Respondent tossed both M.B. and J.A.’s backpacks outside of the classroom. There was testimony that J.A.’s glasses were inside his backpack and were broken as a result of the backpack being tossed, but J.A. did not testify. While other students saw Respondent toss the backpack, the testimony regarding the broken glasses was based upon J.A. telling other students that his glasses were broken, as opposed to the students who testified seeing the broken glasses themselves. Moreover, the Amended Administrative Complaint makes no mention of Respondent being responsible for breaking J.A.’s glasses. It must be noted, however, that the term “toss” conjures up different visuals for different people. According to Merriam Webster, the term means to throw with a quick, light motion; to move or lift something quickly or suddenly; or to move back and forth or up and down. www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/toss. There is nothing in the definition that would attach a violent intent to the action, and it is possible for a person to “toss” a backpack with no intention of damaging the backpack or its contents. It is found that Respondent tossed the backpacks outside with no intention of damaging them or their contents, but did so in a careless fashion and did not take any measures to insure that nothing was in fact damaged when she did so. Some students testified that having students’ backpacks handled this way made them feel Respondent had no respect for their personal belongings. Their testimony in this regard is accepted. The students in Respondent’s classes were a challenging group. Some who testified admitted at hearing that they were not the best behaved. For example, one admitted that he enjoyed being referred to as the class clown, and another admitted that she had an “attitude problem.” There were also indications of significant bullying and conflict between students, and referrals to the office and refocus forms were issued frequently. Some students did not respect Respondent as a sixth-grade teacher and acted accordingly. Respondent had difficulty controlling the students in her class, and was exceedingly frustrated by their behavior. Simply put, teaching in a sixth-grade inclusion class was far different from the kindergarten/first-grade environment to which Respondent was accustomed. On at least two occasions, her frustration was such that she authored and provided documents for students to sign, which contained information about the behavior of other students in her classroom. For example, on December 14, 2011, there was an incident in her classroom involving student Z.M. The details related to the incident are not important, but the incident resulted in a referral for Z.M. Respondent wrote her account of the incident, comprising two pages. She asked two students who were present at the time of the incident to sign the second page of the document as witnesses. Respondent admitted authoring the document and asking the two students, H.W. and L.L., to sign it. She explained that she prepared the narrative for the benefit of the administrator who would receive the referral, and asked for the students to sign it so that the administrator would know which students had witnessed the incident. Respondent testified that she only showed the students the second page, which had a little more than one paragraph of text and a place for their signatures. H.W. did not testify, and L.L. recognized her signature on the narrative but did not recall signing it. Respondent’s testimony that she only showed the students the second page is accepted. However, it makes little difference. The second page stated: [s]uspension, today’s events and his current failing academic standing as a retention in 6th grade. I have tried to keep this child in my classroom since he is a repeater and will be going to seventh grade next year. He could easily have been written up and referred weekly. I have tried to develop a relationship with him to support and encourage him. His behavior is however, a detriment to the class as a whole. At this point, he will no longer be extended any leniency for inappropriate behavior. The line for the first signature is less than one inch from the typed text. It does not matter whether the two students signing the document were shown the first page: there is significant derogatory information about both Z.M.’s behaviors and academic issues on the page that the two students signed. The fact that page two of the document does not mention Z.M. by name is also irrelevant, given that the students were asked to sign the narrative soon after the incident where Z.M. was clearly a participant. On or about December 19, 2011, Respondent prepared a second narrative regarding problematic behaviors in her classroom. The narrative also stated that the students signing it have never witnessed Ms. Soukey use physical force to get the boys in her class to behave. She asked several students in the classroom to sign the document, and admits doing so. This narrative is signed by students R.R., S.R., S.P., N.S., C.G., G.D., and B.B. Only one of these students testified at hearing, and that student’s testimony does not reference the narrative. Respondent admitted preparing the narrative, stating that upon the advice of counsel, she was documenting those things that were happening in her classroom because she felt that she was being set up for a constructive termination. This narrative does not reference Z.M. Preparing the documents for her personal use is one thing. Having students sign the documents regarding the behavior of their classmates is another matter altogether. It was inappropriate to ask students in the classroom to sign a document detailing the misbehavior of other students in their class. Respondent must have been aware that a student had accused her of using physical force against him, in light of her including a denial of such behavior in the December 19 narrative. However, the evidence presented at hearing did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence that she, in fact, inappropriately grabbed, pushed or hit students in her class. There were students who testified that Respondent pushed them in order to get them moving to their seats. Some students described Respondent’s actions as placing her hands on a student’s shoulders to propel them forward toward the student’s seat. It is found that she did in fact place her hands on students to nudge them along to their seats. Beyond that, however, the students’ testimony was vague at best. The students often did not indicate who was pushed, pulled, or hit, and little or no date or time-frame was identified.3/ On the other hand, several students testified that they never saw Respondent punch, slap, or push anyone, or pull their hair. Z.M., one of the most credible students who testified, admitted his role in a fight that occurred in the classroom, and admitted that he enjoyed being considered the class clown. However, he did not recall Respondent ever punching, slapping, or grabbing a student by the hair. When asked if she ever grabbed anyone by the shirt and pulled them, he answered, “not really in an aggressive way, no.” One student, K.J., testified that Respondent deliberately stepped on his toes in class. K.J. is a tall student who could not sit comfortably at his desk with his feet under the desk, because to do so caused his knees to hit the underside of the desk. As a result, he often had his feet in the aisle in front of him. K.J. sat on the front row, and Respondent told him repeatedly to keep his feet out of the aisle. K.J. testified that Respondent stepped on his toes at least twice. He testified that he would ask her to get off of his feet and she would not respond, acting like she did not hear him, and then would ask him to put his feet under the desk. He was not aware that custodians had come to the classroom to alter his desk so that he could sit more comfortably. K.J. admitted it was possible that Respondent asked him to keep his feet under his desk for safety reasons, but believed that she stepped on his toes deliberately. However, on the totality of the record presented, while the evidence is compelling that Respondent did in fact step on K.J.’s toes, the evidence leaves more than one equally plausible alternative in terms of Respondent’s intentions. She could have deliberately stepped on K.J.’s toes to make a point to him about keeping them under his desk, or she could have stepped on them accidentally because they were admittedly in an aisle that should have been clear. Testimony was fairly uniform that the classroom was noisy. She could have heard his request that she move off of his toes and ignored it, or she could have not heard it. Given that either interpretation is plausible, the evidence is not clear and convincing that stepping on Respondent’s toes was intentional. There was no dispute that the classes Respondent taught that year were unruly and that she was frustrated with the students in her care. There was a lot of yelling, and little effective discipline. There was discussion among the students about the desire of some them to have a different teacher, and at some point in February 2012, students in Respondent’s classes were asked to go to the office and make statements about things they observed in the classroom. Ms. Willis testified that the students were asked to write a statement if there was anything that had happened in Respondent’s class. The statements were far from uniform. It is clear from reading some of the statements that the students are reacting to an inquiry concerning inappropriate touching, and responding that yes, she did touch students, or no, she did not. Whether the question that framed the responses came from Ms. Willis or from the students themselves is not clear: however, there was testimony that the students circulated a petition to try to get her fired, and that they discussed among themselves what they were going to write in their statements. Even with such discussion, there is not enough concrete detail about the alleged events to deem them credible.4/ In addition, there were several adults who came in and out of Respondent’s classroom and spent significant time there during this period. Among those adults were Ms. Christensen, Ms. King, Ms. Hammack, and Ms. Bentz. All who testified talked about the noisy, unruly atmosphere of the classroom, and there was agreement that Respondent appeared frustrated. However, none testified to ever seeing her inappropriately touch a student. Ms. Christensen did not testify. She was a paraprofessional in Respondent’s classroom. There are written statements by Ms. Christensen about various matters occurring in the classroom, in which she states that she had not witnessed Ms. Soukey physically handle a student by hitting, slapping, or punching them.5/ Ms. Hammack was also a paraprofessional who worked in Respondent’s classroom, generally every day. She identified her statement that she had never seen Respondent use physical force to force a student to comply, and testified credibly that she never saw Respondent punch or kick a student, or grab them by the hair, and that she would have seen it if it had occurred. Similarly, Ms. King was a special education teacher who worked in Respondent’s classroom approximately twice a week, in the mornings. She testified credibly that while there was not much control in the classroom, she never saw Respondent be physically inappropriate with a student. Finally, Jan Bentz was a veteran teacher who worked as a substitute at Old Kings. In January 2012, she was asked to work in Respondent’s classroom to provide classroom management support while Respondent taught. When Respondent was eventually removed from the classroom, Ms. Bentz took her place. She, like the other adults who spent time in Respondent’s classroom, testified that she never saw Respondent use excessive force with a student. More importantly, Ms. Bentz testified that the students told her about things that had happened in the classroom previously that she did not in fact witness. She gave the student’s stories little credence because she considered it to be hearsay. When asked on cross-examination about what she was told, she stated that what the students told her was mostly about thrown backpacks: “I don’t know that any actual hand-on-kid type thing happened, and I don’t recall being told about anything like that.” Surely, reporting that a teacher used excessive use of force would have been as important, if not more so, than relating instances where backpacks were tossed outside. Respondent readily admitted that she was not well- suited to teach in a sixth-grade inclusion class, and that because of the many issues going on in her life, she was not doing her best work. However, she also testified, credibly, that while she was exhausted, frustrated, and sometimes angry while working with these students, she did not touch them inappropriately. While it is found that she did guide students to their seats by placing her hands on their shoulders, and sometimes applied pressure to get them to sit in their seats; and that she stepped on K.J.’s toes, it is found that she did not take either action with the intention of harming any child in her care. Respondent clearly did not have control of the sixth- grade classroom and it was a mistake to place her there, especially given the concerns she had expressed when given the assignment. The many serious complications in her personal life, including the serious illness of her husband, mother, and father, and her own debilitating depression, certainly affected her ability to perform her job as she wanted to. Her actions in creating narratives and having them signed by students was misguided and meant as a way of documenting things happening in her classroom. However, it was inappropriate to involve the students in her classroom in her attempt to create any kind of record, whether personal or professional.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e). It is further recommended Respondent be reprimanded; that she be placed on probation for a period of one year; and that as part of her probation, she be required to attend courses as determined by the Commission, in the areas of ethics and stress management. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 15th day of January, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
The Issue Ms. Jensen's charge of discrimination dated May 19, 1995, alleges that her employer, Selma's Cookies, discriminated against her on account of her disability when it fired her on December 5, 1994. The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether that discrimination occurred and, if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Patricia (Patty) Jensen was 48 years old in November 1994, when she saw the "Help Wanted" sign in Selma's Cookies' window in Altamonte Springs, Florida. Interested in learning new work and in need of earning extra cash Ms. Jensen entered the establishment to inquire about the job. Her interview with Selma Sayin, the company owner, led Ms. Jensen to believe that she would be allowed to work part- time, that Christmas rush was near, and that the company needed someone on the phone to take orders and later to train to do baskets. Ms. Jensen commenced work on or about November 18, 1994. She began working on the front line, taking baked cookie trays off the racks, removing cookies from the trays, putting cookies in bags, and performing similar functions. There were numerous holiday orders for Florida Hospital doctors and the company was busy. Ms. Jensen, working with students on some work-study program, packaged the cookies in tins and boxed the orders for delivery by United Parcel Service. This entailed lifting and weighing boxes and stacking them against a wall. At her age, Ms. Jensen claimed, this was not the sort of work she was interested in learning. She had taught school and done other hard work, including operating her own business, a cleaning service for 20 years, but she wanted to learn other aspects of a business, like taking and filling orders. Ms. Jensen thought she might eventually have another business of her own, something like making up gift baskets. Aside from dissatisfaction with the tasks she was given, Ms. Jensen also felt that Ms. Sayin was brusque and "talked down" to her employees. Still, when Barbara Johnson, who also worked on the packaging line and closed up at night, was terminated, Ms. Jensen accepted the offer of more hours, including the responsibility to close at night. On December 1, 1994, the second evening of Ms. Jensen's expanded shift, she was closing up with one of the high school student employees. They had been told generally to "put everything away," but they did not know exactly what this meant. They tried to put cookies into tubs and the tubs into freezers. This was time-consuming and frustrating as the tubs did not fit easily. Ms. Jensen estimates the tubs each weighed approximately 30 pounds. As she and the high school student were lifting the last two to the top shelf, the girl suddenly let go and exclaimed, "I broke my nail." Ms. Jensen hung on to the tub until the girl could lift again. Ms. Jensen felt a burning sensation down her shoulder. That night, the pain continued with burning, stinging and tingling in Ms. Jensen's arm and shoulder. She went to work the next day and another employee heard her groan as she performed her regular tasks. At the other employee's suggestion, Ms. Jensen went to Selma Sayin to tell her about the injury. According to Ms. Jensen, when she told Ms. Sayin about the injury she was offered no sympathy nor a visit to a physician but rather was told only that others also got aches and pains from lifting and bending and she could take some pain medication. Ms. Jensen called her own physician and when she was unable to reach him, she drove around on her lunch break and found a chiropractor's office open. Both the nurse and the chiropractor spoke to Ms. Jensen but told her that, since her injury was a worker's compensation case, she needed to go through her employer's insurance carrier. Ms. Jensen returned to work still in pain. Over the weekend, December 3 and 4, 1994, Ms. Jensen came in to talk with Selma Sayin. Ms. Jensen first asked if Ms. Sayin would be interested in investing in a business with her; later she asked whether Ms. Sayin's friends or clients might be interested in investing. The answer to both was "no", and Ms. Sayin asked that Ms. Jensen not approach her friends and clients. On Monday, December 5, 1994, Ms. Jensen came late to work. Ms. Sayin called her in and terminated her. Ms. Jensen simply was not learning the job and was merely a seasonal employee who was not working out, according to Ms. Sayin. Moreover, Ms. Sayin was concerned that Ms. Jensen would try to take advantage of Selma's Cookies' clients by approaching them for funds for another business. The December 1, 1994, injury was reported to the company's workers' compensation carrier on December 14, 1994, which is when Ms. Sayin claims that Ms. Jensen called to tell her, after her termination, that she had been injured and needed to get medical treatment. As authorized, Ms. Jensen was examined at Centra Care clinic on December 15, 1994, and was diagnosed with a cervical strain. After the initial examination Ms. Jensen continued to receive treatment from the clinic and other health care providers for a variety of complaints which she claimed all emanated from her injury at Selma's Cookies on December 1, 1994. Treatments were primarily anti-inflammatory and pain medications and physical therapy. The parties settled all further workers' compensation claims with a stipulation and lump-sum payment of $14,500 on November 10, 1995. According to the stipulation executed by both parties, Ms. Jensen achieved maximum medical improvement with a 5 per cent permanent impairment rating (Dr. Dancy) or a 0 per cent permanent impairment rating (Dr. Beckner).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its Final Order dismissing the petition for relief and charge of discrimination against Selma's Cookies. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia F. Jensen, pro se 2301 Oak Drive Longwood, Florida 32779 Selma Sayin, President and Owner Selma's Cookies Post Office Box 160756 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32716 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
