The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Ludlam Elementary School (Ludlam)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent has approximately 30 years of teaching experience, and has been a classroom teacher for the School Board since December 1999. As a School Board employee, she has not been the subject of any disciplinary action aside from the 30-workday suspension that is being contested in the instant case. Respondent is currently co-teaching a kindergarten class at Ludlam, the only school at which she has taught during her employment with the School Board. For the eleven years she has been at Ludlam, Respondent has been a kindergarten teacher exclusively, except for the 2009-2010 school year, when she taught second grade. Among the second graders in her class that school year were A. H., A. P., and J. M.3 Dr. Georgette Menocal is now, and was during the 2009- 2010 school year, the principal of Ludlam. At a Ludlam faculty meeting, attended by Respondent, that was held at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Dr. Menocal gave a PowerPoint presentation in which she reviewed, for those in attendance, key provisions of Ludlam's 2009-2010 Faculty/Staff Handbook (Handbook), including the following excerpt relating to "Classroom Management Procedures": CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Teachers should make every effort to handle routine classroom discipline problems by conferring with the student, contacting parents, and referring the student to the counselor. If a serious violation of school rules has occurred, a "Student Case Management Referral Form" should be completed and forwarded to the administration. A response will be forthcoming. * * * It is the teacher's responsibility to manage his/her class and to follow the procedures outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. All level 1 behaviors are to be addressed by the teacher. Most level 2 behaviors can be addressed by the teacher and/or counselor. Level 3 (and above) behaviors require a referral to an administrator. Each student referral must be made on a Student Case Management (SCM) referral form. The disciplinary policies of the school should be administered on a consistent basis throughout the school. The CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT should be reviewed with students at the beginning of each school year. NEVER - Use corporal punishment of any kind (hitting, tapping or tying students, having students stand for long periods of time, etc.)[4] The School Board's Code of Student Conduct-Elementary (Code) (which Ludlam teachers were directed by the Handbook to "follow") provided, among other things, that "Level 3 . . . behaviors" included "Fighting (serious)" and that "Fighting (serious)": Occurs when two or more students engage in physical force or violence against each other and they become so enraged that they do not stop when given a verbal command to do so, OR physical restraint is required, AND/OR someone is injured to an extent that requires immediate first aid or medical attention. Any serious fighting incident that causes injury or requires medical attention would result in a suspension. If the principal or designee determines that one student or a group of students attacked someone who did not fight back, the aggressors should receive punishment for battery, aggravated battery, and/or bullying, depending on the facts, and will likely be arrested. Otherwise, administrators will report all other incidents involving mutual participation as Fighting (Serious) without regard to who was the original aggressor. On February 25, 2010, during a mathematics lesson Respondent was teaching, two female students in her class, A. H. and A. P., were involved in an altercation in the back of the classroom, during which A. H. hit A. P. with a book. Respondent intervened and separated the two girls by physically restraining A. H., who struggled to escape Respondent's grasp. As she was holding A. H., Respondent instructed A. P. to hit A. H. back. A. P. did as she was told, striking A. H.5 with a book.6 The incident (Incident), which lasted approximately a minute, was witnessed by J. M., who was in her seat and had turned around to observe the fracas.7 Notwithstanding that she had physically restrained A. H., Respondent did not report the Incident to the school administration (via submission of a completed Student Case Management referral form, as required by the Handbook, or through any other means).8 Following the Incident, the students in Respondent's class left her classroom and went to their Spanish class. Ludlam's assistant principal was subsequently called to the Spanish class. She removed A. H. and A. P. from the class and brought them to Dr. Menocal's office, where Dr. Menocal spoke to them separately. Both A. H. and A. P. told Dr. Menocal about their scuffle earlier that day in Respondent's classroom and how, during this tussle, Respondent had directed A. P. to hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent. A. H. and A. P. gave Dr. Menocal, at Dr. Menocal's request, the names of three other students who may have witnessed the Incident. The three students9 were brought, separately, to Dr. Menocal's office and questioned by her. Each of the three students confirmed what A. H. and A. P. had told Dr. Menocal. Dr. Menocal asked A. H., A. P., and two of the three other students to whom she had spoken to each write a statement in their own words describing what had happened in Respondent's classroom earlier that day.10 They wrote their statements, separately, in Dr. Menocal's presence. In her written statement, A. H. stated, in pertinent part, "Ms. Grey hold me and then Ms. Grey told her [A. P.] to hit me and then she hit me on my back . . . ." A. P. and the two other children each wrote that Respondent had "let" A. P. "hit" A. H., but they did not specifically state in their written statements that Respondent had told A. P. to strike A. H. After receiving these written statements from the students, Dr. Menocal contacted the School Board police and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to report what the students had related to her about the Incident. That same day, February 25, 2010, a School Board police officer, Officer San Antonio, was dispatched to Ludlam. Officer San Antonio first spoke with Dr. Menocal and then with various students and Respondent. The following morning, at around 9:00 a.m., Respondent's second grade class put on a performance in the school cafeteria as part of a black history month event attended by parents (Performance). Following the Performance, Respondent invited the parents of her students to follow her and the class back to her classroom so that she could have a brief meeting with them (Post-Performance Meeting). Respondent began the meeting by praising the students' Performance. This praise, however, was short-lived, as Respondent started to complain to the parents about the students' "misbehaving" and "acting up" in class. As an example, she cited the altercation the day before between A. H. and A. P. (without identifying them by name). Respondent told the parents that "two little girls" had "got[en] into a fight" and that she was being accused of and investigated by the police for having "held one of them and [having] told the other girl to hit [the girl being held]." Respondent then said, "And I wouldn't do that" (knowing full well that, in fact, she had done "that"), after which she asked her students (including A. H. and A. P.) who were present in the room with the parents, "Did Mrs. Grey do that?" The students responded, in unison, "No, no."11 Respondent informed the parents that, because she "gets in trouble" when she "gets involved," she no longer would hesitate, when a student misbehaved, to prepare and submit to the principal's office a written referral that would follow the misbehaving student "all the way through high school." Later that morning (on February 26, 2010), at approximately 11:15 a.m., a DCFS child protective investigator, Donald Machacon, arrived at Ludlam to investigate the Incident (which Dr. Menocal had reported to DCFS the day before). After first speaking with Dr. Menocal, Mr. Machacon spoke with A. H., A. P., and three other students in Respondent's class.12 The last person Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school that day was Respondent. During her interview with Mr. Machacon on February 26, 2010, A. P. stated that, although at the time of the Incident she had thought she had heard Respondent instruct her to hit A. H., she must not have heard correctly because Respondent, earlier on February 26th, had spoken to her about the matter and denied ever having had given her such an instruction.13 A. P. attributed her having had misunderstood Respondent to Respondent's having had had a "hoarse voice" the day of the Incident. None of the other children Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school on February 26, 2010, including A. H., claimed to have any recollection of Respondent's ever having had told A. P. to hit A. H. (although each of them did tell Mr. Machacon that A. P. had hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent). Respondent, in her interview, indicated that she had held A. H. in order to "break up a fight," but she denied having had told A. P. to hit A. H. during the altercation. She also denied having had spoken about the Incident earlier that day (February 26, 2010) with A. H. and A. P. She did acknowledge, however, that she had referenced the Incident in a talk she had had with a group of parents shortly after the Performance that morning. She further acknowledged that, the day before (February 25, 2010), she had been questioned about the Incident by Officer San Antonio, who was at the school investigating the matter. By letter dated February 26, 2010, and received by Respondent on March 1, 2010, Dr. Menocal formally informed Respondent, in writing, that "[a]n investigation [was] being conducted" of a complaint made by an unnamed "juvenile" complainant alleging that Respondent had "held" her "so that another student could hit her." Among the parents who had attended the Post- Performance Meeting on February 26, 2010, was M. M., J. M.'s mother. M. M. left the meeting concerned about the safety of her daughter in Respondent's classroom given what Respondent had told the parents, particularly about the fight between the "two little girls" that the police had been called to the school to investigate.14 Moreover, M. M. thought that it was inappropriate for Respondent to have discussed the matter at the meeting. The following week, M. M. made arrangements to meet with Dr. Menocal so that she could air her grievances about Respondent. (These grievances were not only about what had occurred at the Post- Performance Meeting. They also concerned "classroom management issues.") Sometime before this meeting between M. M. and Dr. Menocal took place, M. M. learned more about the Incident from J. M. during a discussion the two had following a physical altercation between J. M. and J. M.'s sister. M. M. had initiated the discussion by asking whether J. M. believed that J. M.'s sister had deserved to be hit by J. M., a question to which J. M. responded in the affirmative. When M. M. inquired as to why J. M. felt this way, J. M. answered, "Well, it's like in Mrs. Grey's class, when you get hit, you hit back." In response to her mother's request that she elaborate, J. M. told M. M. about the Incident and how, after A. H. had hit A. P., Respondent had grabbed ahold of A. H., told A. P. to hit A. H. back,15 and then announced to the class, "This is what happens in Mrs. Grey's class, when you hit; you get hit back." M. M. had her meeting with Dr. Menocal approximately a week after the Incident. During her audience with Dr. Menocal, M. M. raised a number of complaints that she had about Respondent. She talked about, among other things, the comments and remarks Respondent had made to the parents and students in attendance at the Post-Performance Meeting, including those relating to the Incident and its aftermath. On March 8, 2010, Respondent was temporarily reassigned, "until further notice," from Ludlam to the School Board's Region III Office, where she engaged in "professional development" activities. By letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received on May 19, 2010, Respondent was advised that the School Board police had completed its investigation of the Incident and found probable cause to believe that she had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. The letter further advised Respondent of her right "to file a written exception" with the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS).16 Respondent submitted to OPS her "written exception," by letter dated May 25, 2010. She subsequently sent to OPS a "[r]evised [v]ersion" of this letter, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to your letter dated May 18, 2010, informing me of the outcome of your investigation (SPAR #R-09002), I wish to exercise my right to provide a written exception to your findings. I take exception to your findings of probable cause to the violation because no such violation occurred. My intervention was simply to stop the aggressing child from hitting the other child and preventing a fight, possibly leading to injuries, between the two children. Below please find specific items with which I take issue . . . . * * * Det. Torrens also states that two students who were interviewed as witnesses told him exactly the same thing which, significantly, was not that I told one child to hit the other as the information from the two combatants indicate. These children also provided him with previously written statements. I would like to see the original documents; to know who took the statements and who was present. I would also like the children to be interviewed on tape as to the veracity of the statements, being cognizant of the fact that these are eight year olds who often repeat what they hear or are told.[17] I did not tell the one child to hit the other, nor did I hold one child so that the other could hit her. I was merely holding back the very aggressive child, who was struggling with me to get loose so that she could attack the other child. It was at this time that the other child, who was free, hit the child I was holding. There were seventeen children in the class at the time I separated the two girls. All seventeen children saw what happened and they all heard what happened. I would like all seventeen children to be separately interviewed on tape. * * * I also wish to clarify the issue of the administrative letter and the suggestion that I discussed the investigation with the parents. This incident occurred on Thursday, February 25th 2010. Officer San Antonio asked me what happened in my classroom on the very same Thursday that it occurred, and I told her that I saw one child crying and I asked her what was the matter. She told me that the other child had hit her, so I separated them. The aggressing child then got angry and wanted to fight, so I held on to her, when the other child came over and tapped her on the back. The Black History function was held on the following Friday (2/26/10). I had no discussions with any parents about the incident. In fact I was not aware that there was an investigation until Mr. Machacon came to the school the afternoon of that same Friday, and told me there were these allegations against me. I certainly could not discuss an investigation that I did not know about.[18] Furthermore, Dr. Menocal did not give me the administrative letter until the following Monday afternoon (3/1/10) and I got assigned to the region the following Monday (3/8/10), eleven days after the incident. I hope this letter helps to provide additional information which will aid in a more comprehensive fact gathering process to enable a fair and just review, with the concomitant overturn of the probable cause findings. These charges I take very seriously as I have dedicated my entire adult life (over thirty years) to the vocation of educating young children without a single incident. I have assiduously guarded the propriety of this noble profession and will resist any attempt to impugn my integrity or besmirch my character. On June 2, 2010, OPS held a conference-for-the-record, at which Respondent had an opportunity to verbally respond to the probable cause finding made by the School Board police. By letter dated July 21, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas advised Respondent that OPS had made a "recommendation that [she] be suspended without pay 30 workdays via an agenda item [that would] be presented to [the School Board] at the meeting scheduled for September 7, 2010." In a subsequent letter, dated August 26, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, at its scheduled September 7, 2010, meeting, that Respondent receive a 30-workday suspension. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation and suspended Respondent without pay from September 8, 2010, through October 19, 2010. Furthermore, it directed Respondent to report to duty at Ludlam on October 20, 2010. Respondent has served her suspension. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Respondent "request[ed] a hearing to be held before an administrative law judge" to contest her suspension. The matter was thereafter referred to DOAH. A. P.'s and A. H.'s depositions were taken in anticipation of the hearing. At her deposition, A. P. declined to answer any questions. A. H. was deposed on December 6, 2010. When asked about the Incident, she stated that she had been hit by A. P. while being held by Respondent. It was her testimony that Respondent was simply "trying [to] keep [her and A. P.] apart," and that Respondent did not tell A. P. to hit her, an assertion that was in direct conflict with what A. H. had related to Dr. Menocal the day of the Incident, when the matter was fresh in A. H.'s mind and she had not yet been exposed to the remarks that Respondent would make at the Post-Performance Meeting.19 A. H. further testified during her deposition that, after the altercation, Respondent "called the office and the office came."20
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order upholding Respondent's 30-workday suspension for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to place Respondent, a classroom teacher, on administrative leave without pay from November 20, 2013, through the remainder of the 2013- 2014 school year due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, as alleged in the December 19, 2013, Statement of Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at PSLHS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the District for approximately 20 years. Respondent has a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33. As a classroom teacher, Respondent is charged with instructing high school students. Regular attendance is considered by Petitioner to be an essential function of the position of classroom teacher. Pursuant to Board Policy 6.549(1)(a), Respondent was entitled to four days of sick leave as of the first day of employment of each school year and thereafter earned one sick day for each month of employment, for a maximum of ten sick days per school year. 2012-2013 School Year During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, Respondent was assigned to teach intensive math classes to students who struggle to pass required state exams required for graduation. Hargadine, in coordination with Petitioner’s Human Resources Department, directed Assistant Principal April Rogers (Rogers) to meet with Respondent on October 2, 2012, to address Respondent’s pattern of absenteeism and the impact it was having on students, and to explore the possibility of accommodations if his frequent absences were caused by a health condition. At least one student asked to be removed from Respondent’s class due to the frequency of Respondent’s absences. As directed, on October 2, 2012, Rogers met with Respondent and discussed Petitioner’s concerns that Respondent’s absences resulted in his students missing math instruction for 39 percent of their scheduled classes. Respondent was notified that he had already exhausted his available sick leave and he had not properly filled out leave requests in a timely manner. During this meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his absences had a negative impact on students. This conference was memorialized in a Summary of Conference dated October 2, 2012, issued to Respondent from Rogers. After the October 2, 2012, meeting, Respondent was also absent on October 16 through 19, 2012. On October 23, 2012, Rogers issued a Letter of Concern to Respondent detailing his continued excessive absenteeism and failure to timely request leave. The letter advised that Respondent’s absenteeism amounted to 17 of 42 instructional days and equated to 40 percent of lost instructional time for Respondent’s students. This letter reiterated that Respondent’s absences directly affect his students’ educational success. In addition to Respondent disrupting the continuity of the classroom by failing to attend work, Respondent also failed to supply adequate lesson plans and/or provide for student instruction while he took unapproved leave. On several occasions, Hargadine or her assistant principal had to create or add to the lesson plans to enable a substitute to teach Respondent’s classes. Respondent’s absenteeism and lack of proper notice of his absences resulted in his students being “taught” by individuals who did not have a college degree in mathematics, or even education, as some of these individuals were substitutes (who only need a high school diploma), para-educators, and even clerical workers. When staff members were required to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, it negatively impacted both students and co-workers. For example, if a clerical worker or para-educator was called to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, their own work would have to wait and they would not be able to complete their own specific job duties in order to ensure coverage for Respondent’s students. After receiving the October 23, 2012, Letter of Concern, Respondent was also absent on October 31, November 1, November 2, November 5, and November 6, 2012. As the assistant superintendent for Human Resources, Ranew assists site-based administrators (principals and assistant principals) concerning staff discipline and adherence to policies and procedures. Rogers requested Ranew’s assistance in addressing Respondent’s absenteeism. On November 6, 2012, Ranew issued a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism. This letter from Ranew reminded Respondent of the importance of him submitting leave requests because his school would not know of his absence even if he properly requested a substitute teacher using the AESOP (computerized) system. By this letter, Ranew also attempted to initiate the “interactive process” required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although Respondent had not identified himself as a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA, his excessive absenteeism suggested that he might need an accommodation if his absenteeism was being caused by a medical condition. The November 6 letter stated, “to the extent that your absenteeism is being caused by medical condition, the District may be agreeable to allowing you to take a leave [of absence] to accommodate such a condition, if that would help. In the event you realize that you are unable to regularly be at work due to a medical condition, you should consider promptly requesting an extended leave of absence (e.g., for this semester or the school year), and the District would be willing to consider such a request.” To determine Respondent’s potential eligibility for an accommodation pursuant to the ADA, Ranew specifically requested that Respondent’s doctor provide documentation clarifying: “a) any specific condition/impairment that Respondent has, as well as the cause; b) any restrictions/limitations on Respondent’s work duties as a teacher; c) the expected duration for each limitation or whether it is permanent; d) whether the condition is controllable with the use of medication, and if yes: what is the mitigating effect of this medication; and whether Respondent could fully perform his job duties, with the aid of such medication.” In response to Ranew’s letter, Respondent provided the District with a doctor’s note from Dr. Kenneth Palestrant dated November 7, 2012, stating that the majority of Respondent’s visits to the clinics occur between the months of January through May and September through December (effectively during the calendar school year) and speculated that Respondent “may” be exposed to allergens in the school building or in his classroom. Dr. Palestrant explained that Respondent was being treated with antibiotics and allergy medications and recommended Respondent receive an allergy test from an allergist to identify the specific allergens. Dr. Palestrant found that other than the potential environmental exposure to an allergen, he found “no reason [Respondent] cannot perform his full duties as a school teacher as he has no impairment and the medications he has been given have no mitigating effect upon his performance.” After receiving Dr. Palestrant’s November 7, 2012, note, and after receiving an e-mail from Respondent in which he wondered if something in his classroom might be causing his medical condition, Ranew asked Sanders to inspect Respondent’s classroom. Sanders’ job duties would require him to facilitate any remedial action with regard to Respondent’s classroom, should one be needed. In response to this request, Respondent’s classroom was inspected but nothing of concern was discovered within the room. Nonetheless, the classroom was sanitized using two methods: with an ozone machine to kill bacteria and other germs, including mold, and also with a fogger using disinfectant that kills microorganisms, bacteria, and mold, as a precaution. On November 15, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew, informing her that he was “being evaluated by an Allergist, and will be setting up a colonoscopy per doctor’s orders Tuesday, [November 20, 2012].” On November 15, 2012, Ranew sent an e-mail to Respondent requesting that he provide her with an allergist report when complete. On November 16, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew in which he discussed beginning to take a new allergy medicine, and promised to fax the allergist report to her. Ranew issued a letter to Respondent dated December 21, 2012, advising him that she had yet to receive an allergist report, again requesting such a report or medical clarification. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter also reminded Respondent that regular, consistent, punctual attendance, and working a full assigned workday are essential functions of his position as a classroom teacher. Although Respondent did not request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), when he failed to provide the requested allergist report five weeks after Ranew requested it, and Respondent continued his pattern of excessive absenteeism, the District advised that it intended to designate his absences as FMLA-qualifying. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter to Respondent again requested clarification from Respondent’s doctor/allergist, with a focus on “whether there is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that will enable you to perform the essential functions of [your] position (classroom teacher).” Respondent was told, “[i]n the event that you believe that something such as trees, grass, or something else near your current classroom/school may be causing your condition, which has resulted in many absences, the [School] District is willing to consider a request to transfer you to another location.” Notably, Respondent did not provide any information from a health care provider which suggested any work modification would enable him to perform the essential functions of his job, nor did he take advantage of Petitioner’s offer of a transfer to another location. In response, Respondent emailed Ranew on December 29, 2012, advising that his allergy test would be conducted on January 3, 2013, and he would provide the results to her as soon as he received them. Respondent also expressed interest in obtaining information regarding short-term disability leave. On January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that if he desired to take leave in connection with his private insurance company’s short-term disability policy, she requested that he advise her “as soon as possible as the [School] District may be able to accommodate you with an extended leave.” There is no evidence that Respondent pursued Ranew’s offer for an accommodation in connection with short-term disability. By letter dated January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that she still had not received a copy of his allergist’s report, and she “had been trying to accommodate [Respondent], but it is difficult to do when the information [the School District] need[s] is still not provided.” Ranew again reminded Respondent that his students needed continuity in the classroom and, if he was unable to provide that, other arrangements would need to be made for the upcoming semester. Respondent provided Ranew with an allergist report dated January 18, 2013. The report explained that Respondent tested positive for multiple allergens, and recommended treatments, including immunotherapy (allergy injections), prescribed medications (nasal sprays), and surgery (balloon sinuplasty). Respondent’s allergist identified Respondent being allergic to 42 antigens, including cats, dogs, various grasses, weeds, trees, dust mites and cockroaches, and mold. Respondent’s allergist recommended Respondent undergo surgery, and Petitioner permitted Respondent to take FMLA leave for such surgery. Respondent was also permitted to intermittently use all remaining FMLA leave available to him, which he exhausted and which expired on March 28, 2013, due to the conclusion of his FMLA designated 12-month period. In addition to utilizing all FMLA leave available, the District also provided an additional 21 days of unpaid leave during the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year to Respondent, which was above and beyond his allotted sick leave, as well as above and beyond the 60 days of FMLA leave to which he was entitled. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was absent 89 out of 191 possible work days, which accounts for an absenteeism rate of 48 percent. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent only worked 772.50 hours. Although Petitioner designated additional unpaid days as FMLA, Respondent was not eligible for additional FMLA leave beginning in March 2013 through March 2014 because he had not worked the requisite number of hours in the preceding 12- month period to be eligible for FMLA leave. 2013-2014 School Year On August 9, 2013, prior to the beginning of the 2013- 2014 school year, Ranew sent a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism; explaining that his regular attendance was expected during the upcoming 2013-2014 school year; that his students need continuity in the classroom and if he was unable to provide that continuity, that other arrangements needed to be made for the next school year; that he should not expect to be automatically extended any additional unpaid leave during the 2013-2014 school year; and he would only receive the sick leave to which he was already entitled. Ranew advised Respondent that when he returned for work at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year he would have four days of permitted sick leave advanced to him, and would accrue one additional day at the end of each month from August through February. In this letter, Ranew also told Respondent that it was her understanding that the sinus surgery that he underwent was part of his treatment plan to resolve the sinus and allergy issues which seriously impacted his attendance (during the 2012- 2013 school year) and that his chronic sinusitis was expected to improve post operatively. Respondent did not challenge or correct Ranew’s understanding on these issues and did not indicate that additional absences were anticipated. Ranew had serious concerns about the lack of consistent instruction for Respondent’s students due to Respondent’s absenteeism. Only 11 of Respondent’s 94 students passed the standardized math examination required for graduation in the 2012-2013 school year, which is approximately a 12 percent pass rate. This was significantly lower than the 50 percent pass rate of Respondent’s colleagues who also taught the same type of “struggling” math students. In order to minimize the potential disruption to students caused by excessive absenteeism, Respondent was assigned to teach accounting classes for the new school year which are not courses required for graduation. Respondent was also assigned to a different classroom, in a different building, for the 2013-2014 school year. As of October 3, 2013, Respondent was absent on August 27, 28, 29, 30, and September 5, 9, 20, 23, 25, 26, and October 2, 2013, well in excess of the sick leave that he was permitted to take in accordance with Board policy. By letter dated October 3, 2013, Ms. Ranew wrote to Respondent advising him that his pattern of absenteeism has a direct negative impact on an orderly learning environment and referring to her August 9 correspondence wherein she directed Respondent to advise the District if he needed leave above and beyond the sick days that he was permitted to take. Ranew advised Respondent that he had not provided the requested medical documentation that would support that he had a medical condition necessitating leave from his job, but that the District was continuing its attempt to engage Respondent in an interactive process concerning his medical condition, and again requested documentation from Respondent’s doctor addressing his recent absences and his current condition. In response to Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent submitted a doctor’s note dated October 9, 2013, which advised that Respondent’s condition “can be treated with nasal sprays and intermittent antibiotics” but raised the potential for future treatment to include additional surgical procedure(s). Importantly, the doctor’s note clearly explained that Respondent “can perform as a teacher with [his medical conditions], though he may notice hearing loss changes whenever he has middle ear fluid.” The October 9, 2013, doctor’s note Respondent submitted accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September, but failed to address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. Even after receiving Ms. Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent was absent on October 9, 21, and 22, 2013. As of October 24, 2013, Respondent was absent 14 days out of 46 instructional days for the 2013-2014 school year. Ranew worked with Yost in the decision to recommend to the Board that Respondent be placed on administrative leave without pay. The basis for that recommendation was Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and failure to follow protocol for sick leave. By letter dated October 24, 2013, Yost advised Respondent that she was recommending his placement on a leave of absence specifically because of his continual excessive absenteeism, which had been a constant disruption to the classroom and directly impacted an orderly, continuous learning environment for his students. Yost believed that recommending Respondent be placed on leave without pay was not disciplinary in nature, but rather done to provide him an accommodation to resolve any issues which had caused his excessive absenteeism. On October 24, 2013, Yost placed Respondent on “home assignment” with pay through November 19, 2013, at which time the Board voted to accept Yost’s recommendation to place Respondent on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. The Charges Against Respondent In its Statement of Charges in Support of the Placement on Administrative Leave Without Pay filed on December 19, 2013, the District advanced four theories for Respondent’s leave without pay: incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. “Incompetency” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3) as, “the inability, failure or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity.” “Gross insubordination” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(4) as “the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the required duties.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-5.056(2)(c). “Willful neglect of duty” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the “intentional or reckless failure to carry out required duties.” “Misconduct in Office,” according to rule 6A-5.056(2), is satisfied by a showing of one or more of the following: a violation of the adopted school board rules, a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (as adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001), or behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment. The Board’s Policy 6.301(3)(b) identifies a variety of terminable offenses including: Insubordination * * * (x) Failure to follow a direct order in normal performance of employee’s job * * * Failure to notify supervisor and receive permission for one or more consecutive workdays’ absence Unsatisfactory work performance Excessive absences or tardiness Neglect of duty Unauthorized absences * * * (xix) Violation of any rule, policy, regulation, or established procedure * * * (xxix) Any violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, the Standards of Competent and Professional Performance, or the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees * * * (xxxiv) Failure to correct performance deficiencies The finding that Respondent violated one and/or multiple Board policies relating to his excessive absenteeism necessarily shows that he is guilty of “misconduct in office.” Respondent’s Defenses Reason for Absences Respondent does not dispute his record of absenteeism or the District’s record of communicating its concern regarding his chronic absenteeism and its effect on his students. Rather, Respondent asserts that his absenteeism was related to the environmental conditions at PSLHS. Respondent believes that he suffered from chronic sinus problems, headaches, and repeated scratchy throats due to possible exposure to mold or other allergens at the school which caused many of his absences. According to Respondent, PSLHS suffered storm damage in 2008 that resulted in mold growing around his classroom door. After school authorities were notified by Respondent of the mold issue, the door and mold was removed. Respondent has not worked in that classroom in more than three years. Respondent admitted that some of his absences during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years were not related to sinus problems. For example, Respondent missed work when he stayed up late with a new puppy. Respondent also missed work to get massage therapy on several occasions. Several of Respondent’s absences were attributed to stomach issues. None of Respondent’s doctors identified any need for Respondent to be extensively absent from work due to any medical condition, other than his recommended sinus surgery which occurred in early 2013 and was covered by FMLA. No evidence was introduced at the hearing that any of Respondent’s doctors actually determined that anything either at PSLHS or within Respondent’s classroom caused Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, or that Respondent could not work at PSLHS due any medical reason. To the contrary, during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent provided 30 doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent provided four doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. Respondent admitted he was allergic to various grasses and trees common to Florida, and even admitted he was allergic to the grass in his own yard. When Respondent was asked if anything changed in his home environment between the 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 school years where his absences skyrocketed, he testified that he had just gotten a puppy. During the relevant time period, approximately 70 percent of Respondent’s absences occurred on days when the proceeding day was not a school day, which suggests it was unlikely that Respondent’s absences were due to the environment at his work site. Although Respondent claimed his school environment exacerbated his allergies, his absences at issue are full-day absences where he called in sick for the entire day rather than leaving work during the workday. At no time did Respondent or his healthcare providers suggest that PSLHS or Respondent’s classroom should have air quality testing. Respondent admitted, on the days he was absent, he felt worse when he woke up at home than when he was at work in his classroom and when he was too sick to come to work he would wake up “hacking.” Further, while on administrative leave without pay, Respondent showed up to PSLHS in January 2014 to oversee a wrestling tournament that he previously helped organize. It is illogical that Respondent would voluntarily return to the very place which he now suggests made him so sick that he needed to continuously take days off without available leave or sick time. No credible evidence was presented to suggest that Respondent’s chronic absenteeism was as a result of the District’s failure “to provide a suitable working environment,” as alleged by Respondent.1/ Use of Administrative Leave Rather Than Discipline The Board asserts that Respondent’s chronic pattern of absences during the 2012-2013 school year and the first few months of the 2013-2014 school year resulted in “just cause” for termination. However, in lieu of termination, Ranew proposed, and the Board accepted, her recommendation for administrative leave without pay. Ranew credibly testified that she believed this would give Respondent the opportunity to take care of any problems that were causing his absenteeism and allow him to successfully return to the classroom in the 2014-2015 school year. There is no provision under any statute, rule, or policy specifically providing the Board with the authority to place an employee on administrative leave without pay instead of a suspension without pay or termination.2/ Because of this, Respondent argues that he was deprived of due process by the Board and that the Board’s action constitutes the improper use of an unpromulgated rule. A “rule” is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as an: agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of rule. § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. No evidence was presented regarding any alleged Board “statement of general applicability” regarding the use of administrative leave without pay as a substitute for disciplinary action. Further, it is clear from the record that Respondent received all the process to which he was entitled--notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Respondent was provided a letter by hand delivery on October 24, 2013, from Yost in which he was advised that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment until the next Board meeting and that she intended to recommend he be placed on administrative leave without pay through the remainder of the school year due to his excessive absenteeism. He was notified that he had exhausted all paid leave yet continued to be absent. It was also noted that Respondent’s physician indicated he could perform as a teacher but may have a hearing loss when middle ear fluid is present. Notably, his physician’s letter accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September 2013, but did not address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. This letter advised Respondent that if he had any information to provide regarding why this action should not be taken, he could do so in a meeting or in writing. Accordingly, Respondent had notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Additionally, the Statement of Charges issued on December 19, 2013, and the formal administrative hearing before DOAH constituted notice and an evidentiary hearing-–the post adverse employment action due process to which Respondent was entitled. The undersigned has no doubt about the sincerity of the Board’s desire to see Respondent take time to address whatever was resulting in his absences and return to work successfully. However, to call Respondent’s “administrative leave without pay” a non-disciplinary action is an exercise in form over substance. While on leave, Respondent was not receiving his normal wages for teaching. He was not allowed to return to the school to teach for the balance of the school year.3/ Understandably, Respondent does not perceive his leave as beneficent. For all intents and purposes it is, in fact, a “suspension” without pay which, pursuant to the Board’s policies, applicable rules, and statutes, can only be imposed for “just cause.”4/ Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a pattern of excessive and chronic unexcused absenteeism during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, despite the District’s repeated reminders regarding the disruption caused by Respondent’s absences and its multiple attempts to accommodate any medical condition that might have been causing the absences.5/ This pattern resulted in a variety of terminable offenses as described in Board Policy 6.301(3)(b). It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of incompetency, as defined by rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)5. by virtue of his excessive absenteeism--a pattern which was not resolved after FMLA leave, 21 additional days of leave without pay during the 2012-2013 school year, and which continued into the new school year of 2013-2014. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination by virtue of his failure to perform his required duties, excessive absenteeism despite having no paid leave available, and failing to return to work on a consistent and regular basis after repeated and extensive counseling by the District regarding the consequences of his actions. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty by failing to regularly report to work or to properly request time off from work or make arrangements to have lesson plans available for substitute teachers. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office by virtue of his violation of School Board policies and disrupting his students’ learning environment by his chronic absenteeism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent’s suspension without pay from November 20, 2013, through the end of the 2013- 2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of his suspension; and reinstating Respondent’s employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014-2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 12th day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
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 Broward County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a drama teacher at Miramar High School (“Miramar”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. 2010-2011 School Year On November 3, 2010, the vice-principal of Miramar held an informal conference with Respondent due to concerns regarding Respondent’s personal interactions with students and staff, at which time Respondent was directed to: 1) “not meet with another teacher’s students during his or her class time”; 2) “speak in a calm, respectful and professional tone at all times”; and 3) “always represent Miramar High School in a positive and professional manner.” 2011-2012 School Year On February 10, 2012, the vice-principal of Miramar issued a written reprimand to Respondent because of Respondent’s alleged “insubordination during a previous meeting.” According to the written reprimand, Respondent exhibited conduct during a meeting that “was unbecoming of a professional.” 2012-2013 School Year By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent no longer had any desire to teach drama, and he had requested to be transferred to another school. In an email dated May 30, 2015, Respondent stated: I think it would be best if we parted ways. I think the drama program deserves a fresh start and a teacher with a passion and drive to take the students to the next level. If, for some reason, I do return to Miramar, I would like to teach 9th grade English. 2013-2014 School Year Respondent was unsuccessful in his efforts to obtain a transfer to another school. On September 6, 2013, Respondent wrote to the School Board requesting unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In his explanation for requesting leave, Respondent alleged: “Miramar High is a hostile and harassing environment and it is effecting [sic] my mental and physical well being.” Respondent provided the School Board with documentation from a health care provider in support of his request for unpaid medical leave. The School Board granted Respondent’s request for Family and Medical Leave, and Respondent was on unpaid medical leave from September 6, 2013, until December 4, 2013. The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on Monday, February 24, 2014, during Respondent’s second-period Drama II class. On Friday, February 21, 2014, Respondent was absent from work. Respondent’s son, who was a substitute teacher at Miramar, taught Respondent’s second-period Drama II class in Respondent’s absence. Respondent’s Drama II class was an elective class. There were 31 students in the class. Some of the students were serious about the class and hard-working, while others were not. On Friday, February 21, 2014, the students were supposed to be preparing for an upcoming school play performance called “The Mask.” The Mask was an original collaboration by the students. Approximately six weeks had been spent preparing for the play. However, as of February 21, 2014, the play was not performance-ready and a lot of work still needed to be done. The students should have utilized the time during their class on Friday, February 21, 2014, to prepare for the play. However, because there was a substitute teacher, some students wasted their time and were rude and disrespectful to Respondent’s son. Respondent was very upset when he found out that some of the students were rude and disrespectful to his son. On Monday, February 24, 2014, shortly after Respondent’s second-period Drama II class began, Respondent gave five of the students a pass to go to another class (history or debate). These students had minor parts in the play, and they were given assignments to work on independently in either the history or debate class. After these five students left the classroom, Respondent “took the stage.” The stage is located above and in front of the students’ desks. After waiting a few moments, Respondent proceeded to berate the class in a loud, angry, and profane tirade, stating: You disrespected my son. How dare you. How dare you. I will give every single person in this class an “F,” and you all just go screw yourselves. You don’t deserve me. You don’t deserve me. What are you going to do? [STUDENT] I’m going to stay -- Sit your ass down and shut up. Not a single sound. You laugh, you make a noise, you’re out; you understand me? I am sick of this class and I am sick of this school. You want a play, show me a goddamn play. Respondent’s tirade was captured on audio and video by one of the drama students in the class. A copy of the audio-visual recording of the incident was received into evidence at the hearing as the School Board’s Exhibit 2. Respondent’s verbal tirade directed at the class was inappropriate, verbally abusive, and disparaging. Respondent could certainly have projected authority and addressed the students’ behavior toward his son without resorting to the abusive, profane, and disparaging tirade. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Through the verbal tirade directed at his students, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e) by failing to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to learning and intentionally exposing his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent also violated rules 6A-5.056(2)(d) and (e) by engaging in conduct which disrupted the students’ learning environment and reduced Respondent’s ability to effectively perform his duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3). Through the verbal tirade directed at his students, Respondent failed to discharge his required duties as a teacher as a result of inefficiency. Respondent was inefficient by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to students. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent violated School Board Policy 4008. Through the verbal tirade of his students, Respondent failed to treat his students with kindness and consideration. In addition, Policy 4008 requires compliance with the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. By failing to comply with the specific directive detailed above “to speak in a calm, respectful and professional tone at all times,” Respondent intentionally refused a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that his language and use of profanity toward his students in the classroom on February 24, 2014, was inappropriate. At hearing, Respondent conceded that “[u]nfortunately, I lost my cool.” Respondent was remorseful of his verbal tirade at the hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of willful neglect of duty as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order upholding the termination of Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Amended Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is presently 25 years of age. His date of birth is July 29, 1974. Petitioner had a troubled youth; however, since the August 6, 1994, incident (described below) that is the focus of the instant case, he has matured and gained a reputation of being a responsible adult member of his community. On Saturday, August 6, 1994, shortly after his twentieth birthday, at approximately 5:55 p.m., Petitioner was driving north on Andrews Avenue in downtown Fort Lauderdale. He had just finished running errands for his father in the downtown area and was on his way home. 5/ There were no passengers in his vehicle. As Petitioner approached the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, there was a woman standing on the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection, facing south, who attracted his attention. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, the woman, Joyce Fleming was a police officer employed by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Officer Fleming was participating in an undercover operation designed to "combat street level prostitution activity." Her role in the operation was to pose as a street prostitute. When Petitioner stopped for a red light at the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, he made eye contact with Officer Fleming, who waved at him and pointed him toward a nearby parking garage, which was underneath an office building. Petitioner pulled into the parking garage and parked his car, head first, facing a concrete wall and beside concrete pilings. Officer Fleming, who was wearing a wire, then walked up to the driver's side of Petitioner's vehicle and started talking to Petitioner. The conversation she had with Petitioner was tape recorded 6/ and monitored by backup officers (who were in the vicinity). Officer Fleming began her conversation with Petitioner by complaining that a certain police officer, who, she told Petitioner, had been across the street from where she had been standing on North Andrews Avenue, was always "bothering" her. It was because of this police officer, she explained to Petitioner, that she had not "want[ed] to get in over there." After being told about the police officer, Petitioner asked Officer Fleming, "Why don't I meet you somewhere else?" To allay Petitioner's concerns, Officer Fleming told him that the police officer was no longer across the street and that therefore she could "get in" his vehicle. Petitioner, however, indicated to Officer Fleming that he was still "nervous about it," to which Officer Fleming replied, "If you're nervous, you can go on." Petitioner, though, did not "go on." He chose to stay. 7/ Officer Fleming then asked Petitioner what he "want[ed] to do." Petitioner answered, "I don't know, what do you want?" Officer Fleming's response was, "Well, I don't care; just tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you how much." Petitioner told Officer Fleming (whom he believed to be a prostitute) that he was interested in a "blow job." 8/ He and Officer Fleming then haggled over the price. Petitioner ultimately agreed to pay Officer Fleming $10.00, 9/ after which the following exchange took place between Petitioner and Officer Fleming: Officer Fleming: Okay. We can do that then. Petitioner: Why don't I meet you somewhere else? Officer Fleming: You don't want to do it here? Petitioner: Well, I don't want a cop pulling up. It was at this point in time that back up officers arrived on the scene and arrested Petitioner for "soliciting for prostitution" in violation of Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1. At no time did Petitioner actually pay Officer Fleming any money; nor was there ever any physical contact, sexual or otherwise, between Petitioner and Officer Fleming. (Petitioner remained in his vehicle, while Officer Fleming stood alongside the vehicle on the driver's side, throughout their conversation in the parking garage.) The charge that Petitioner had violated Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1 10/ by agreeing to pay Officer Fleming for oral sex was filed in Broward County Court, and it was docketed as Case No. 94-15421MO10A. On March 23, 1995, Petitioner filed a Sworn Motion to Dismiss in Case No. 94-15421MO10A. Appended to the motion was a copy of a transcript that had been prepared of the tape recording of the conversation Petitioner had had with Officer Fleming immediately prior to his arrest. The transcript, however, did not accurately and completely reflect the contents of the tape recording. It omitted Petitioner's affirmative response when he was asked by Officer Fleming, during price negotiations, whether he would be agreeable to paying $10.00 for her services. 11/ Pursuant to an agreement with the Municipal Prosecutor, Petitioner entered a Pre-Trial Intervention Program on or about July 5, 1995. Petitioner successfully completed the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. Consequently, on October 23, 1995, prior to any ruling having been made on Petitioner's Sworn Motion to Dismiss, the Municipal Prosecutor issued a Nolle Prosequi in Case No. 94-15421MO10A announcing that the "City of Fort Lauderdale decline[d] prosecution on all municipal violations against [Petitioner] arising out of [his] arrest on [August 6, 1994]." Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December of 1997 with a B.A. degree in English. On or about February 17, 1998, Petitioner submitted to the Department of Education (Department) an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate seeking an "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate. On the application, he acknowledged his August 6, 1994, arrest. From August of 1998 to January of 1999, Petitioner was employed as a tenth-grade English teacher at MacArthur High School in Hollywood, Florida (which, at the time, had an enrollment of 2,200 students). The principal of the school was (and still is) Beverly James. In Ms. James' opinion, Petitioner did a "very good job" while at the school, and she "would not hesitate" to rehire him if he received his teaching certification. In addition to his classroom responsibilities at MacArthur High School, Petitioner also served as the assistant coach of the school's wrestling team. The head coach of the team was Michael Zarra. In Mr. Zarra's opinion, Petitioner did a "good job coaching," and he would not "have any hesitation to have [Petitioner] back as an assistant wrestling coach." As evidenced by his job performance at MacArthur High School, by engaging in the conduct for which he was arrested on August 6, 1994, Petitioner has not impaired his ability to be an effective teacher. The incident, which took place when Petitioner was a 20-year old college student, four years before he began teaching at the school, was not widely publicized and it has not adversely affected his reputation in the community. By letter dated December 28, 1998, Petitioner was notified that his Application for Florida Educator's Certificate was being denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons that accompanied the letter. Shortly thereafter, Ms. James terminated Petitioner's employment at MacArthur High School. She did so only because she was told she had to inasmuch as Petitioner "would not be certified." On or about March 17, 1999, Petitioner was provided with an Amended Notice of Reasons reflecting that the denial of his application was based solely upon the August 6, 1994, incident involving Officer Fleming. Petitioner subsequently sought to reopen Broward County Court Case No. 94-15421MO10A. His efforts were successful. On June 23, 1999, Broward County Court Judge Joel T. Lazarus issued a Final Order of Dismissal in the case, which provided as follows: CAME ON TO BE HEARD on June 21, 1999 Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition and Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and being further advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition be and the same is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, as to Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court's consideration of the matters before it, this Court makes a determination that no material issue of fact that sustains the criminal charges against this Defendant exist[s] and that the Defendant is entitled to dismissal as a matter or law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss be and same is hereby GRANTED and the Defendant is herewith discharged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order reversing the Department of Education's preliminary denial of Petitioner's Application for Florida Educator's Certificate and directing the Department to issue, unconditionally, the "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2000.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent on the basis of her failure to timely comply with continuing education requirements established by Section 626.2815, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is currently licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance ("Department") as a General Lines (2-20) Agent. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, the Respondent was licensed as a General Lines (2-20) Agent and as a Life, Health, and Variable Annuity (2-15) Agent. At all times material to this case, insurance agents licensed in Florida have been required to complete continuing education courses every two years. Licensed insurance agents can meet their continuing education requirements by attending seminars, taking classroom courses, or taking self-study courses. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, the Respondent was required to complete 28 hours of continuing education courses. /3 The required courses could be taken and completed at any time during that two-year period. At all times material, the Respondent has been aware of the continuing education requirements applicable to licensed insurance agents. The Respondent resides in Key Largo, Florida, and has lived at the same address for at least 10 years. Miami, Florida, is about 60 miles from Key Largo. Key West is about 100 miles from Key Largo. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, there were 11 continuing education courses offered in Key largo. During that same period there were 73 continuing education courses offered in Monroe County. During that same period there were approximately 3,000 continuing education courses offered in Dade County. The Respondent waited until July 16, 1997, which was 15 days before the end of her two-year continuing education deadline, before taking any action to comply with the continuing education requirements. On that day she ordered two self-study courses from a course provider named Noble. If an insurance agent chooses a self-study course to fulfill the continuing education requirements, the course is not considered to be completed until the agent has taken a monitored examination on the course material and has achieved a score of at least 70 percent. The Respondent finished her study of the course materials she bought from Noble by the end of July 1997, but she did not take and pass the examinations on those materials until the end of August 1997, which was three or four weeks past the end of her compliance deadline. In July of 1997, the Respondent was nursing an infant child. Although Noble had a testing site in Miami, the Respondent did not want to go to Miami to take the examinations for her self-study courses, because a trip to Miami would interfere with nursing her child. The Respondent waited until the end of August, because by that time Noble had opened a testing site in Key Largo. All insurance agents who failed to comply with the continuing education requirements for the period ending July 31, 1997, were sent a Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance. All agents who did not respond to the Preliminary Notice of Non- Compliance were sent a Final Notice of Non-compliance. Both preliminary and final notices were sent to the Respondent. The Department initiated disciplinary action against all insurance agents who were found to have failed to comply with the continuing education requirements. The Department offered each of the non-compliant agents an opportunity to settle the disciplinary actions by payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Numerous insurance agents settled on those terms. In one case, such a disciplinary action was resolved by a stipulated six-month license suspension.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of failing to comply with statutory and rule provisions regarding continuing education, and imposing a penalty consisting of a six-month suspension of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999.
