The Issue Whether Respondent, Barbara Aboushahba, committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Orange County School Board, is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Orange County, Florida, including the employment of personnel associated with the educational process. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a kindergarten teacher pursuant to the terms of a professional services contract with Petitioner. Respondent is a member of the bargaining unit covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of Orange County and Orange County Classroom Teachers Association. On June 25, 2003, Respondent received a written directive "to provide clarification or guidance" from the principal of the school where she taught that she "must avoid touching students except as is absolutely necessary to effect a reasonable and lawful purpose," and "to avoid even the appearance of verbal intimidation of students." On May 18, 2005, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for misconduct from her principal, because she "grabbed a student to get his attention." In the letter she was warned that "should there be another incident of a similar nature, discipline, up to and including dismissal, may be recommended." On May 31, 2005, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for violating "prior directives and [that you] again placed your hands on a student in a manner that could be interpreted as punitive." In addition, on that date Respondent received a directive that she avoid "touching a student in a manner that serves no educational or lawful purpose" and that she "must exercise care and professional judgment to avoid the appearance of the inappropriate use of physical intimidation." She was urged to "carefully consider when and how to respond to student behaviors." On May 26, 2006, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days as a result of "allegations that you used inappropriate force against a student" and that she "violated two previous directives regarding placing your hands on a student." On March 26, 2007, Respondent executed a Settlement Agreement to resolve an Administrative Complaint that had been filed by the Education Practices Commission in John L. Winn v. Barbara Aboushahba, Case No. 056-0009-V. The Settlement Agreement included a letter of reprimand and a $400.00 fine. On April 22, 2007, E.B., a ten-year-old student in Respondent's computer lab, had not completed his assignment. Respondent grasped E.B.'s hand and placed his hand on the computer keyboard and/or mouse, with her hand superimposed on his hand. This apparently upset E.B., who then pulled his shirt up and over his head. Respondent then pulled E.B.'s shirt down from his face and told him to "stop crying like a baby." E.B. was crying as a result of being upset by Respondent's actions. Respondent's touching of E.B. was minimal, but unnecessary and inappropriate. Her comment to him was callous and insensitive. Given the fact that this incident occurred less than one month after the above-referenced settlement with the Education Practices Commission, it is apparent that Respondent has not responded appropriately to the directives, reprimands, and guidance directed to similar inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent, Barbara Aboushahba's, "gross insubordination" constitutes "just cause" under Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, to dismiss her from her employment as a teacher with Petitioner, Orange County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Lindsay N. Oyewale, Esquire deBeaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP 332 North Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 87 Orlando, Florida 32802-0087 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked, or Respondent otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated October 21, 1980. This proceeding commenced with the Filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Commissioner of Education alleging that Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked or suspended, or other action taken, pursuant to Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, for gross immorality, moral turpitude, and engaging in conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness, by reason of the alleged sale of cocaine to Tampa Police Department Detectives on November 16, 1979. The complaint also alleged that the Respondent was in violation of Section 231.09, F.S., in that he failed to provide a proper example for students, and of Chapter 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that he had not practiced his profession at the highest ethical standard. The complaint was filed on October 21, 1980, and by an "election of rights" form received by the Professional Practices Services Section of the Department of Education on December 29, 1981, Respondent disputed the allegations of material fact of the complaint and requested a formal hearing before this Division. The case was thereafter referred by the Education Practices Commission to this Division by letter of January 6, 1981. By Order, dated January 15, 1981, the parties were advised of various procedural matters by the Hearing Officer, and paragraph 7 thereof quoted Model Rule of Procedure 28-5.104, F.A.C., concerning representation in administrative proceedings. Notice of Hearing was issued on February 4, 1981, for final hearing on April 23, 1981. Due to the fact that it was later determined that an incorrect address had been used on the notice for Respondent, an Amended Notice of Hearing was issued on March 11, 1981. On April 20, 1981, a letter from Respondent to Petitioner's counsel dated April 12, 1981, was received in this Division after referral by said counsel. The letter requested that Petitioner's counsel inform him of a court appointed attorney to represent him since he could not afford to hire an attorney to defend him. He further asked that he be granted a continuance until the problem could he resolved. Petitioner's counsel informed Respondent, by letter dated April 16, that he was unable to assist him in his request. On April 22, the Hearing Officer advised Respondent telephonically that there was no provision for "court appointed counsel" in administrative proceedings and that due to the lengthy period of time since Respondent had been aware of the pendency of the proceeding and of his rights to representation, and because Petitioner's counsel had orally communicated objection to any continuance, that his request was denied. Respondent stated that he did not intend to appear at the hearing and, in a later telephone conversation on the same date, stated that he was transmitting a telegram withdrawing his request for hearing. Since no such communication was received on April 22, the hearing commenced as scheduled. At that time, Respondent appeared at the hearing and renewed his motion for continuance over objection of Petitioner, and the prior denial was reaffirmed. Upon inquiry by the Hearing Officer, Respondent stated that he did not wish to represent himself and that he would not participate in the proceedings other than to submit a letter and accompanying copy of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeals in the case of Pearl v. Florida Board of Real Estate, Case No. 80-347, opinion issued February 17, 1981. In his letter, Respondent requested that consideration be taken of his record as a counselor for seven years at Sligh Junior High School in Tampa, Florida, and that his certificate not be revoked. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Respondent was thereupon advised of his rights in administrative proceedings, but although he remained in the hearing room during the course of the hearing, he took no further part in the proceedings. Petitioner filed prehearing discovery requests which were not responded to by Respondent. Petitioner thereafter Filed a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and Respondent failed to respond thereto. By Order dated March 26, 1981, the motion was granted and Respondent was provided a period of ten days to either respond to Petitioner's discovery requests or to assert any rights against self-incrimination as to individual requests. Respondent did not respond to the foregoing order and therefore, a subsequent order was issued on April 8, 1981, wherein it was ordered that pursuant to Rule 1.370(a), Fla.R.Civ. P., the matters of which Petitioner's First Requests for Admissions were requested were deemed admitted by the Respondent for the purpose of this proceeding. Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and submitted five exhibits in evidence. Additionally, at the request of Petitioner, official recognition was taken of orders issued by the State Board of Education from 1976-1981 relating to drug-related cases in administrative license disciplinary proceedings. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2)
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Michael Knox holds certificate No. 325767, postgraduate rank II, which expires on June 30, 1982, covering the areas of biology, science, junior college and guidance. (Complaint) Respondent's address on December 16, 1979, was 7409 El Encanto Court, Apartment 203, Tampa, Florida. At all times material, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School System as a guidance counselor. As a guidance counselor, Respondent counseled students with drug problems. (Petitioner's First Request for Admissions) On November 16, 1979, Detective Candice Moore, Tampa Police Department, pursuant to information supplied by a confidential informant that cocaine could be purchased from Respondent, telephoned Respondent to arrange such a purchase. During the course of the conversation, Respondent agreed to sell Moore a quantity of narcotics at his residence that evening. Detective Moore arrived at Respondent's residence at approximately 6:50 P.M. and was invited into the house by Respondent. He then showed her two packages and told her that she could choose the one that she wanted. She selected one of the packages. Respondent then brought out a tray on which there was a substance divided into six "lines." Respondent told Moore that she could sample the first and second lines. She simulated "snorting" the substance and also tasted it. Respondent "snorted" two lines of the substance and then told her to take the last two lines. She again simulated that she was taking the drug. Detective Moore had tasted cocaine before in the course of her duties and had determined that cocaine has a distinctive taste. The substance that she tasted at Respondent's residence tasted like cocaine. Detective Moore gave Respondent $85.00 in U.S. currency and put the package, which appeared to contain approximately one gram of the substance, in her purse. Detective Moore and Respondent then spoke of the possibility of future transactions, and he told her that if she wanted more cocaine in the future to provide him several days notice since he only kept two to three grams at his home. He further told her not to tell anyone where she had obtained the cocaine and that everything would then be "cool" and they could do business together in the future. After leaving the apartment, Detective Moore observed another detective at the police station perform a chemical reagent test on the contents of the package which she had purchased. The test was positive for cocaine. The contents of the package was then identified under evidence No. 9E-10250 and a small sample was sent to the State Crime Laboratory for analysis under evidence No. 9E-10251. Laboratory analysis utilizing standard testing procedures established that the substance gas cocaine. (Testimony of Moore, Booth, Wilbarger, Kasten, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2) Respondent thereafter was charged with delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine in violation of Sections 893.13(1)(a)(2), and (1)(e), Florida Statutes. On July 9, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of of nolo contendere to the charges in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 80- 780. The Court entered an order that adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence be withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years. 1/ (Petitioner's Exhibits 3-5) Joseph C. Greco, Supervisor of Guidance Services for the Hillsborough County School System, is of the opinion that a high school guidance counselor who is arrested for the possession of cocaine would set a poor role model example for students and that his effectiveness in the school system would be diminished. He further is of the opinion that such a person would not have adhered to the highest ethical standards required of personnel in the school system. (Testimony of Greco)
Recommendation That Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked, pursuant to Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18 day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1981.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Kimberly Rosario (Respondent), as an employee with the Hernando County School Board (Petitioner or School Board).
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools, grades K through 12, in Hernando County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school- aged children in the county. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat.1/ Rick Markford is the principal at J.D. Floyd K-8 (J.D. Floyd), a school in the Petitioner’s school district. As principal, he has ultimate supervisory authority over all staff members at the school, including custodians. In December 2013, Mr. Markford hired Respondent to serve as a Custodian 1 to work the night shift at J.D. Floyd. Shortly after starting her employment, Respondent’s excessive absenteeism rose to a level where she was taking impermissible leave without pay. As a result, Mr. Markford contacted the School Board’s human resources department for guidance on how to proceed. The School Board has enacted Policy 6.37 to provide the grounds for termination for all educational support and non- certified instructional personnel in its school district. Under Policy 6.37, Group III offenses warrant termination for a first- time violation. Respondent was specifically charged with violating Policy 6.37 Group III offenses “(5) Excessive absenteeism or excessive tardiness” and “(8) Absence from duty without authority, including refusal to report to duty at any time as directed.” Although the Petitioner can proceed directly to termination for a first-time Group III offense, it utilizes a five-step progressive discipline process for excessive absenteeism and absence from duty without authority. The first step is a coaching session with the employee. If the issue continues, the second step is a corrective action plan. The third step is a formal conference with an employee conference report placed in the employee’s file. Step four is a letter of reprimand. And the fifth step is a referral to Human Resources for further action, up to and including termination. In accordance with School Board policy, because of Respondent’s excessive absences, Mr. Markford initiated the five-step process described above. Step 1 occurred on March 7, 2014, when Mr. Markford held a coaching session with Respondent to discuss her absences without pay. She was specifically warned that any further unpaid absences would result in a second meeting and a corrective action plan. On April 17, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to address her excessive absenteeism and issue a corrective action plan in accordance with Step 2. As part of the corrective action plan, Respondent was informed that all future absences for the 2013-14 school year would require a doctor’s note and she would need to directly contact Mr. Markford. Despite the coaching, Respondent’s absences without pay continued, requiring Mr. Markford to initiate Step 3 in a June 23, 2014, meeting with Respondent. The employee conference report reflects that Respondent was absent without pay from May 29, 2014, through June 16, 2014. Petitioner’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, each year. Although Respondent had no entitlement to continued employment beyond June 30, 2014, Mr. Markford decided to reappoint her for the 2014-15 school year to give her a second chance. Because it was a new school year, any further issues with absenteeism would start at Step 1 of the five-step process rather than continuing directly to Step 4. On July 14, 2014, shortly after the start of the new school year, Mr. Markford had to meet with Respondent to initiate Step 1 in the process due to her taking leave without pay on July 2, 3, and 9, 2014. In the corresponding coaching- session note, Respondent was issued a corrective action plan. Respondent’s impermissible absences continued. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to discuss a corrective action plan related to her continued excessive absenteeism, including her absence on July 16, 2014. That same day, Mr. Markford met with Respondent for an Employee Conference Report due to her continued absences without pay, including her absence on July 17, 2014. As reflected in the Employee Conference Report, Respondent was again informed that being in attendance every day was important. Respondent was directed to contact Mr. Markford directly to notify him of any future absences and that she must provide a doctor’s note for such absences. Despite the coaching, Respondent continued to be absent without pay and failed to comply with the corrective action plan. As a result, Mr. Markford issued her a Letter of Reprimand on September 14, 2014. Mr. Markford again explained to Respondent that “[p]unctual and regular attendance is an essential function of [her] job.” In the Letter of Reprimand, which Respondent signed, Respondent was specifically informed that “any further incidents of absenteeism will be considered willful absenteeism and [that Mr. Markford] will recommend that [her] employment with the [School Board] be terminated.” Following the reprimand, Mr. Markford informed the School Board’s human resources office of the issues with Respondent’s excessive absences and identified the disciplinary procedures he had followed. It was only after Respondent had exhibited a clear pattern of absenteeism and had been specifically warned that her continued actions would lead to a recommendation for termination that she filed a complaint against a co-worker alleging harassment. Specifically, on September 26, 2014, Respondent alleged that Christopher Griesbeck, night Custodian 1 at J.D. Floyd, said her “days are numbered here and laughed.” The complaint also referenced an April 2014 incident where Mr. Griesbeck, who was allegedly upset that Respondent was appointed to a day shift instead of him, took her to classrooms she was responsible for and pointed out deficiencies. There was no allegation that the alleged harassment was sexual in nature. Mr. Markford conducted an investigation into the harassment allegations by interviewing Respondent; Vincent Juliano, a Custodian 2 at J.D. Floyd; Mr. Griesbeck; and several Custodian 1s at J.D. Floyd. After completing the investigation, Mr. Markford determined that Respondent’s “complaint of working in a hostile environment is unfounded.” The investigation revealed that, as a result of Respondent’s high absenteeism, there was a degree of resentment and frustration among some of the custodial staff. Mr. Markford took steps to address the issue and developed a plan to limit the interaction between Respondent and Mr. Griesbeck going forward. Mr. Markford met with Respondent to inform her of his findings. On October 17, 2014, Respondent suffered an injury at work when she mis-stepped and twisted her knee, aggravating a pre-existing injury. A workers’ compensation injury report was completed on October 20, 2014, at Mr. Markford’s insistence and Respondent thereafter received treatment. The next day, October 21, 2014, Respondent was cleared to return to work with restrictions for her left knee. Consistent with the restrictions, as well as the restrictions she had over the next couple of months, J.D. Floyd provided her with light-duty work. On December 15, 2014, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work from her workers’ compensation injury with no restrictions. But Respondent was absent without authority on December 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, 2014. The Petitioner’s school district had a vacation break from December 24, 2014, through January 4, 2015. After returning from the break, Respondent’s unauthorized absenteeism continued. On January 6, 2015, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work on January 12, 2015, again with no restrictions. Despite this, Respondent’s high absenteeism and failure to follow the corrective action plan continued. On January 28, 2015, Mr. Markford held a meeting with Respondent because she was absent on January 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2015, without providing a doctor’s note. Mr. Markford explained that he considered Respondent’s actions to be insubordination and the matter would be referred to Human Resources. Respondent’s absences continued. At the time of those continued absences, Respondent would send text messages to Mr. Markford explaining she was not coming to work, and Mr. Markford would respond by informing her that she did not have any leave time and she was required to come to work. She did not comply with the directions. On February 2, 2015, Petitioner’s Director of Human Resources, Dr. Sarah Meaker, wrote a memorandum to the Petitioner’s Equity, Policy, Insurance and Compliance Administrator, Heather Martin, recommending that disciplinary action be imposed against Respondent based on Respondent’s continual absence from work without a doctor’s note. On February 12, 2015, Mr. Markford met with Respondent regarding her continued failure to come to work and non- compliance with the corrective action plan. This was the first workday in February that Respondent showed up to work. Respondent refused to sign any documentation and left work early without authority. On February 13, 2015, Ms. Martin informed Respondent that a pre-determination meeting would be scheduled regarding Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without leave in violation of School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8). Petitioner had difficulty trying to contact Respondent in an effort to move forward with the disciplinary process. In reply to a text message from Mr. Markford informing her to contact Ms. Martin, Respondent responded: “They have my number they can use it.” In preparation for the predetermination meeting, Ms. Martin had a calendar created for the 2014-15 school year which showed the number of days and partial days that Respondent was absent. Specifically, for July 2014, Respondent missed five full days and one partial day; for August 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for September 2014, she missed seven full days and one partial day; for October 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for November 2014, she missed six full days and three partial days; for December 2014, she missed nine full days; for January 2015, she missed 12 full days and five partial days; and for February 2015, through the 18th of that month, she missed 11 full days and one partial day out of the 12 possible work days. The predetermination meeting was held on February 18, 2015. Minutes were kept for the meeting and thereafter transcribed. At the predetermination hearing, Respondent admitted that she was no longer on workers’ compensation because the doctor cleared her as maximum medical improvement (MMI). Respondent offered no valid justification for her excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without authority. Following the meeting, Ms. Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be terminated due to her excessive absenteeism and absence without authority. On February 19, 2015, Petitioner’s Superintendent of schools, Dr. Lori Romano, charged Respondent with violating School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8) based on Respondent “being excessively absent and absent without authority.” Dr. Romano explained there was probable cause for discipline and that she would recommend Respondent’s termination. After Respondent indicated she wished to appeal the recommendation, the matter was transferred to DOAH and an administrative hearing was scheduled. Respondent did not attend the hearing. Respondent did not give advance notice that she would not attend the hearing and she did not explain or provide a reason for her absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent’s employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools District pursuant to a professional services contract. In the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Homestead Middle School. In the 2012-2013 school year, until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at the Alternative Outreach Program, 5000 Role Models location.1/ At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Events Giving Rise to these Proceedings The 2011-2012 School Year Respondent began teaching eighth grade science at Homestead Middle School ("HMS") in August 2011. The 2011-2012 school year for students began on August 22, 2011. The workday hours for teachers at HMS for the 2011-2012 school year were from 7:25 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed for her teaching position, and again so informed during the first faculty meeting of the school year. Pursuant to the UTD contract, the teacher work hours per day in the Miami-Dade Public Schools consist of seven hours and 20 minutes, including a one-hour planning period. The UTD Contract provides that teachers may, with the approval of the work-site administrator (i.e., the principal) modify their workday schedule, such as adjusting the beginning time of the teacher's workday, provided that such modification does not interfere with the overall number of hours worked. This provision affords a principal the authority and discretion to modify a teacher's workday schedule. The student school day hours for HMS began at 7:35 a.m., when the first bell rang and students began entering their classrooms, and ended at 2:20 p.m. Students were to be in their classrooms by 7:40 a.m. for a homeroom period, immediately followed by the first instructional period consisting of a literacy block. The student school day schedule is set by the Miami-Dade County School Board and the school principal is not authorized to change it. Pursuant to HMS's established procedure, if a teacher was going to be absent, he or she must call the absence hotline at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the teacher workday. Shortly after the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began being tardy to work. HMS Principal Rachelle Surrancy or one of the HMS assistant principals would note Respondent's arrival time, either by being in the front of the school when she arrived2/ or by having to open the door to her classroom to let her homeroom class students in if she arrived after the late bell had rung. Surrancy verbally reminded Respondent of the school's starting time, then held an informal meeting with her on or about September 7, 2011, to remind her of the same. Respondent's young son suffers from a range of significant health conditions, including asthma, gastrointestinal reflux, apnea, pneumonia, lactose intolerance, allergic rhinitis, and eczema. He requires extensive care for these conditions, and Respondent was required to administer breathing treatments and other care on a daily basis. During flare-ups of her son's conditions, Respondent needed to take medical leave to provide that care. On or about September 20, 2011, Respondent submitted to Surrancy an Intermittent Leave Request Medical Certification form under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (hereafter "FMLA Form")3/ requesting approval for Respondent to periodically take leave due to the intermittent illness of her young son. The FMLA form was completed and signed by Respondent's son's physician. Based on the child's medical history, the physician estimated that Respondent would need to take FMLA leave every two to three months, for a period lasting two to three days. Notwithstanding Surrancy's admonitions, Respondent continued to be tardy to work. During the first 25 days of the school year, Respondent was tardy 16 of those days. Most of the tardies entailed an arrival time of between two and five minutes late, but some entailed arrival times as much as 25 to 35 minutes late. When Respondent arrived after 7:40 a.m. (15 minutes late), her colleagues in the science department were placed in the position of having to cover her class until she arrived. As a result of Respondent's continued tardiness, on September 28, 2011, Surrancy issued a Punctuality to Work Directive ("Directive") to Respondent regarding her punctuality and attendance.4/ The Directive reminded Respondent that punctuality and attendance were essential components of her teaching position, and that as a faculty member, she served as a role model to other employees and student. Respondent was apprised that she was to arrive at work on time and sign in daily by 7:25 a.m. If she was going to be tardy, she was to communicate that to an assistant principal or to Surrancy. Surrancy explained that compliance with these directives was necessary to prevent adverse impact to the students and their academic progress, to ensure continuity of the educational program, and to maintain effective worksite operations. The memo advised Respondent that she could obtain assistance to facilitate her punctuality. Respondent was notified that noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. Respondent told Surrancy that the reason she was tardy was that she had to take her son to his daycare center. The daycare center did not open until 7:00 a.m., making it difficult for her to arrive at HMS by 7:25 a.m. due to the commute in morning traffic. On October 5, 2011, Surrancy evaluated Respondent's instructional performance for the 2011-2012 school year pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used in the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. Surrancy rated Respondent as "effective" for each IPEGS standard other than Performance Standard ("PS") 7, "Professionalism."5/ For that standard, she rated Respondent's performance as "unsatisfactory" on the basis that due to her tardies, Respondent violated the School Board's Code of Ethics and Standards of Ethical Conduct policies.6/ After the September 28 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy, so on October 10, 2011, Surrancy again met with her. Respondent explained that each day, her son required a breathing treatment regimen that she had to administer and that she had to take her son to daycare. Respondent told Surrancy that she planned to enlist the assistance of a friend to take her son to daycare so that may assist her to arrive on time.7/ Surrancy offered to adjust Respondent's workday schedule to allow her to arrive five minutes later to accommodate her travel time from her son's daycare to HMS, contingent on Respondent arriving at work by 7:30 a.m. However, Respondent continued to be tardy, at times arriving later than 7:30 a.m. Surrancy held a follow-up meeting with Respondent on October 25, 2011, at which she notified Respondent that the adjusted workday schedule no longer was in effect and that she was again required to arrive at 7:25 a.m.8/ In the meantime, Respondent sought to transfer to a school having a workday schedule with which she could more easily comply, given her son's daycare start time and her travel time. She was offered, but declined, a position at Redland Middle School, which entailed a teaching assignment that was out of her field of certification. Respondent declined the position because it did not meet the condition of her loan forgiveness program that the assignment be in a critical subject area——such as science and math——and because she did not believe she would be as proficient a teacher in teaching out of her subject area. Following the October 25 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy. Several of these tardies necessitated coverage for her homeroom class. On December 14, 2011, Surrancy held a Conference-for- the-Record ("CFR") with Respondent to address her continued tardiness. By that time, Respondent had been tardy 45 days since the beginning of the school year, and several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class by her colleagues. Surrancy informed Respondent that her tardies had adversely affected the educational program and services provided to students. Respondent was again directed to be punctual and in regular attendance, to communicate any intent to be tardy before 7:00 a.m. by calling the assistant principals or her, and to provide physician documentation and/or recertification of her FMLA form as needed if she was going to use FMLA leave to cover her tardies. Respondent was provided copies of Petitioner's policies on Standards of Ethical Conduct, Code of Ethics, and Leaves of Absence; Department of Education rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006; another copy of the FMLA for recertification by her physician; and other documents to inform and assist Respondent in addressing her tardiness problem. Respondent was informed that noncompliance with the directives would constitute insubordination and compel district disciplinary action. Respondent continued to be tardy. Again, several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class. On February 13, 2012, Surrancy conducted another CFR with Respondent. As of that date, Respondent had been tardy 69 days since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Surrancy issued Respondent the same directives previously given and again furnished Respondent copies of pertinent School Board policies, applicable Department of Education rules, and other informational documents. Surrancy informed Respondent that failure to comply with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and necessitate further disciplinary action. Respondent explained that her tardiness was due to a variety of factors, including having to perform breathing and other medical treatments on her son and taking him to daycare. She expressed concern at having to call in by 7:00 a.m. if she was going to be tardy because, for unforeseen reasons such as her son's daycare being late in opening, she may not know whether she was going to be tardy until after 7:00 a.m. Surrancy informed Respondent that under any circumstances, calling in did not excuse tardiness. Respondent requested that Surrancy assign her homeroom to another teacher and allow her to report at 7:45 a.m., when her science classes commenced. Surrancy refused. As a result of Respondent's continued tardies, Surrancy determined that her conduct constituted insubordination and noncompliance with applicable School Board policies. Surrancy issued a written Reprimand to Respondent on March 5, 2012. The Reprimand directed Respondent to adhere to school board policies, be punctual, and call Surrancy or an assistant principal before 7:00 a.m. if she were going to be tardy. Respondent nonetheless continued to be tardy, necessitating another CFR, which was held on March 29, 2012. By this time, Respondent had been tardy 86 days and absent 8.5 days in the 2011-2012 school year. During the CFR, Respondent provided two FMLA leave request forms completed by her son's treating physicians certifying the frequency and duration of her son's flare-ups that necessitated leave. One of these, dated March 6, 2012, stated that flare-ups occurred at a frequency of every one to two months for a duration of two to three days, while the other, dated February 20, 2012, stated that the flare-ups occurred approximately once a month and did not specify a duration. Under any circumstances, Respondent was tardy more frequently than the number of days of leave documented as necessary by either of these FMLA forms. Respondent again was given directives, which included those previously provided regarding punctuality and attendance, calling in by 7:00 a.m. if tardiness was anticipated, physician documentation for leave requests, performance of her teaching duties, comporting herself in a manner that reflected credit on herself and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and adherence to School Board policies and applicable Department of Education rules. Respondent was again provided copies of the policies, rules, and other documents previously given to her. Respondent was offered the option of resigning her position but declined. Surrancy recommended that Respondent be suspended from her teaching position. However, Respondent was not suspended during the 2011-2012 school year.9/ Although Respondent's tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year required coverage of her homeroom class by colleagues on several occasions, she did not miss any classroom instructional time.10/ 2012-2013 School Year For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was hired as a math and science teacher in the Educational Alternative Outreach Program's ("EAO") credit recovery program. She was assigned to the EAO's 5000 Role Models location. In this assignment, Respondent taught between 12 and 15 students in grades six through eight. The 5000 Role Models facility was located between 35 and 40 miles from Respondent's home. She had a commute of between one hour ten minutes and two hours one way from her home to 5000 Role Models. The teacher workday hours for this location were 8:20 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed by EAO Principal Claire Warren, and by letter from Warren regarding her projected teaching assignment for the 2012-2013 school year. Warren credibly testified that at the time she was interviewed, Respondent did not express any concerns regarding this schedule. The student school day at 5000 Role Models started at 9:00 a.m. Shortly after the school year commenced, Respondent began being tardy. During the first week of the students' school year, Respondent was tardy twice, approximately 20 minutes each time. On August 31, 2012, Warren issued Respondent a written memorandum reminding her of the directives that were issued the previous school year and directing her to be punctual and in regular attendance; call before 8:00 a.m. to notify either Warren or the assistant principal if she was going to be absent or tardy; provide physician documentation for absences and tardies due to illness; timely submit updated FMLA forms if anticipated illness or tardies covered under the FMLA are anticipated; adhere to all School Board policies; and perform her job responsibilities. Respondent was placed on notice that noncompliance with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate notification of the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. As of October 1, 2012, Respondent had been tardy eight times11/ and absent three days.12/ On some of the days she was tardy, Respondent did not call to notify the administration, as she had been directed to do; on other days, she sent text messages but did not call. Warren conducted another conference with Respondent on October 1, 2012. She issued another memorandum documenting Respondent's tardies since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, reiterating the directives previously issued on August 31, and notifying Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination. Warren also provided a letter to Respondent regarding FMLA coverage of her tardies and absences. The letter informed Respondent that only absences, i.e., time away from the worksite, and not tardies were covered by the FMLA, and that it was her responsibility to notify the school if she were going to be absent pursuant to an FMLA-certified illness event. Attached to the letter was an FMLA Form to enable Respondent to update her FMLA-covered illness certification as necessary. Respondent's tardies continued. She was tardy on October 2, 5, 8, and 9——on some of these days as much as 45 to 70 minutes late. On the days when she was tardy by 40 or more minutes, she missed classroom instructional time and her students had to be placed in another teacher's classroom. On October 10, 2012, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay,13/ for gross insubordination and for violating School Board policies regarding the Code of Ethics (policy 3210), Standards of Ethical Conduct (policy 3210.01), and Leaves of Absence (policy 3430), and rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009.14/ Respondent served her suspension and returned to work on November 26, 2012. On that day, she was 11 minutes tardy; the following day, she was 40 minutes tardy. On November 29, 2012, Warren issued another memorandum to Respondent reiterating the directives previously given on August 31 and October 1. Respondent was informed that her failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate referral to the Office of Professional Standards for further discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. In December 2012 and January 2013, Respondent was tardy 13 days, two of which required coverage of her class. Respondent did not call in to the school to notify them of her anticipated tardiness but she did notify the school by text message on some of these occasions. On February 1, 2013, Respondent was notified of a CFR scheduled for February 5, 2013. On February 4, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she would not be at school that day or the following day. On February 6, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she was taking a leave of absence "for at least the next few weeks." She also informed Warren that her absences the previous two days had been due to her own illness. Respondent did not submit a leave request form to Warren prior to taking sick leave. Respondent did submit a Leave of Absence Medical Documentation Form to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Retirement/Leave/Unemployment Compensation ("Leave Office") on February 5, 2013, containing her physician's certification that she was ill and recommending a leave of absence from February 4, 2013, to March 1, 2013. Because she was requesting approval of leave for less than 30 days' duration, under the UTD Contract, Respondent should have filed her leave request with Warren rather than with the Leave Office. UTD Contract Article XIV, section 2, paragraph A., governing notification in the event of teacher absence, states in pertinent part: When a teacher, for whom an emergency temporary instructor is employed, will be absent from work, due to illness or injury or due to personal reasons, he/she shall notify the supervising administrator (or designee), as soon as possible, but no later than one hour before the start of his/her scheduled workday, in order that an emergency temporary instructor can be employed or other arrangements made. If said absence/leave is for a specified period of time, no further notice is necessary. In the event of a change in this specified period of absence, the employee will proceed, pursuant to the stipulations herein. Where an absent teacher does not notify his/her supervising administrator, as stipulated herein, and where there are not extenuating circumstances, as determined by the supervising administrator, such teacher will have the option to utilize personal leave or leave without pay. However, such determination by the supervising administrator shall not be made arbitrarily. UTD Contract, art. XIV, § 2.A. (emphasis added). Article XIV, section 10, governs sick leave without pay for illness. Paragraph C. of that section states: "[e]mployees whose illness requires an absence of over 30 days must file an application for extended sick leave indicating the anticipated length of such absence and supported by a statement from competent medical authority." This leave request would be filed with the Leave Office. However, because Respondent did not request sick leave for a period exceeding 30 days, this provision was not applicable to her leave request. Notwithstanding, Respondent's leave request was reviewed by a medical consultant for Miami-Dade County Public Schools and ultimately was denied. Apparently, some time elapsed before the Leave Office forwarded Respondent's leave request and denial decision to Warren. Warren testified: "I didn't get the request until much afterwards, you know, after she had been out several days " Even after Warren received Respondent's leave request form and denial from the Leave Office, more time passed before she notified Respondent. It was not until March 1, 2013, that Warren sent Respondent a letter informing her that her leave request had been denied and that her absences for the entire month of February were unauthorized, thus warranting her dismissal on the basis of job abandonment. At approximately the same time Warren notified Respondent that her leave request was denied, Warren also notified Respondent, by separate email, that she had incorrectly submitted her leave request to the Leave Office, instead of submitting it to her (Warren). On the same day that Warren notified Respondent that her leave request had been denied, Respondent submitted another leave request form and a medical documentation form to Warren, retroactively requesting approval of her sick leave taken between February 4 to March 18, 2013, due to her own illness. Warren denied the request that same day, citing the medical consultant's determination as the basis for the denial. Warren's letter did not cite an independent basis for the denial. Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the medical consultant's determination to deny the request. Respondent returned to work on March 4, 2013. She was tardy that day and the following day. On March 6, 2013, a CFR was held. The CFR originally had been scheduled for February 5, 2013, but when Respondent took leave, it was rescheduled. At the meeting, Respondent was apprised that her tardies and absences were excessive and that they, along with her failure to adhere to the other previously issued directives, constituted gross insubordination. On March 13, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent's Criminal History Petitioner presented evidence that in August 2012, a records check for Respondent was generated after information was received from Petitioner's Fingerprinting Office indicating that Respondent had been arrested in January 2011 for violation of a protective injunction and in July 2011 for battery. However, this evidence consisted solely of hearsay. Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay evidence establishing that these arrests occurred. Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011. She acknowledged that she was arrested for battery in July 2011. She testified, credibly, that the arrest occurred over the July 4th holiday and that she timely reported this arrest by calling Petitioner's instructional staffing office. Respondent credibly testified that the charge was not prosecuted and ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not present any competent or credible evidence to refute Respondent's testimony on these points. Respondent's Defenses Respondent asserts that she was not tardy as frequently in the 2011-2012 school year as Petitioner asserts. She questions the accuracy of Surrancy's and others' recordkeeping regarding her tardiness. However, she did not present any specific evidence to show that Petitioner's records of her tardiness in the 2011-2012 were inaccurate; thus, her position on that point is essentially speculative. She also claims that Surrancy did not treat her fairly or equitably during the 2011-2012 school year. Specifically, she asserts that Surrancy had the authority and flexibility to adjust her workday schedule so that she did not have to cover a homeroom class, thus allowing her to arrive at work later, but that Surrancy unfairly chose not to do so. Respondent further asserts that Surrancy had provided such accommodation to another teacher in a previous school year. Thus, Respondent claims that Surrancy treated her unfairly.15/ However, Surrancy testified, persuasively, that she could not have relieved Respondent of having a homeroom in order to enable her to arrive later in the workday because instructional personnel, other than coaches and co-teachers, were assigned homeroom or other professional duties that required them to be at school during regular workday hours. Thus, there was no one else available to assume Respondent's homeroom class responsibilities.16/ Respondent also asserts that Surrancy treated her disparately and unfairly by singling her out for discipline for her tardies, while not disciplining others who also were often tardy. However, even if that were the case, it does not excuse Respondent's tardies or provide a basis for Surrancy to decline to enforce school policies with respect to Respondent. Respondent also asserts that she was not afforded the FMLA leave to which she was legally and contractually entitled. Specifically, she argues that she filed FMLA leave forms stating the need for intermittent leave to care for her son, so that for the days on which she was tardy, the number of minutes by which she was tardy should have been counted as leave under the FMLA. Respondent testified, credibly, that she did not purposely refuse to follow the directives given her by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards, and that her tardies during both school years were the result of her having to provide medical care for her young son and take him to daycare, then commute in heavy traffic to the worksites. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner claimed that Respondent was insubordinate because she did not adhere to directives to call the school if she was going to be tardy, Respondent credibly countered that she often would call in, only to be put on hold for some time and then told that the administrator she was attempting to reach was not available; thus, she started sending text messages instead to ensure that her message was received. Regarding the arrest reporting issue, Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011, and testified that she timely reported her July 2011 arrest to the appropriate authority. Findings of Ultimate Fact In these consolidated proceedings, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment17/ as a teacher on the basis of just cause——specifically, gross insubordination and misconduct in office.18/ As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.33 and rules 6A-5.056; and 6B-1.001 and 6A-10.080; and 6B-1.006 and 6A-10.081. Gross Insubordination Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's conduct in accruing an extensive number of tardies during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years constituted gross insubordination. Although Respondent did submit leave request forms estimating the frequency and duration of FMLA-covered leave she would need in order to care for her son, the evidence shows that she was tardy far more frequently than supported by any of the forms she submitted. In order to accommodate an employee's FMLA request, Petitioner must be able to rely on the information the employee provides on the FMLA leave form. If the information provided on the form is inaccurate, Petitioner is neither required nor authorized to consider undocumented time away from the work site as leave covered under the FMLA.19/ While it is admittedly difficult to precisely predict when illness will occur, under any circumstances, the forms Respondent submitted did not cover the frequency of her tardies incurred in the 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 school years.20/ As addressed above, it appears that Respondent was the victim of a coalescence of unfortunate personal circumstances that interfered with her employment. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was repeatedly put on notice by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards that her continued tardiness would constitute gross insubordination. Any measures that Respondent purportedly took to rectify the circumstances, such as enlisting the help of a friend to take her son to daycare, apparently were unsuccessful. Respondent had the option in the 2011-2012 school year to transfer to another school to address the morning commute issues, but she chose not to. Although she had legitimate personal and professional reasons for choosing to remain at HMS, the fact remains that she elected not to pursue a course of action that may have addressed the problematic circumstances she found herself in. Under these circumstances, the undersigned concludes, albeit reluctantly, that Respondent's conduct——which took place over a period of two school years, after frequent admonitions, and after she had been placed on notice several times that her continued conduct would constitute gross insubordination——does, in fact, constitute gross insubordination. With respect to Respondent's absences in February 2013, the evidence indicates that Petitioner's Leave Office and Principal Warren unnecessarily delayed notifying Respondent that her leave request for February 2013 had been denied. The evidence gives rise to the inference that Respondent may have cut her leave short and returned to the work site had she been timely informed that her request had been denied. Moreover, Petitioner presented no competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the Leave Office's denial of Respondent's request, or for Warren's denial of Respondent's retroactive request on the same basis. Under these circumstances, the undersigned determines that Respondent's absences for the month of February 2013 should not be considered unexcused. However, even without considering these absences, Respondent's repeated tardiness over an extended period of time without proper leave documentation and after extensive prior notice of the consequences, is sufficient to establish gross insubordination. Misconduct in Office As more fully discussed below, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed misconduct in office under both versions of rule 6A-5.056 in effect in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, respectively. Specifically, Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession because her conduct caused her to lose the respect and confidence of her colleagues. In particular, Respondent's frequent tardiness substantially undermined Surrancy's confidence in her reliability, and, thus, impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness over the course of the 2012-2013 school year also constituted misconduct in office. Again, she violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession by failing to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues. Respondent's frequent tardiness adversely affected Warren's confidence in her reliability. Additionally, on the days when Respondent's tardiness necessitated her students being moved to another teacher's classroom, her students' learning environment was disrupted, and her own ability and that of her colleagues to effectively perform their duties was reduced. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired. Petitioner also charged Respondent with violating Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, which provides that all employees are representatives of the Miami-Dade County School District and requires employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Respondent's frequent tardies over an extended period of time gave the appearance of disregard for school policies and did not reflect credit on her or on the school district. Moreover, Respondent did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when they had to be moved to another teacher's classroom due to her tardiness.21/ Accordingly, Respondent violated Policy 3210. Respondent also violated Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. As found above, she did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when she was so tardy that they had to be moved to another classroom. However, Respondent did not violate Policy 3430, Leaves of Absence. For the reasons discussed above, Respondent's absences in February 2013 should not have been determined unexcused; thus, she did not violate Policy 3430. Respondent also did not violate Policy 3121.01, Employment Standards and Fingerprinting of Employees. To the extent Petitioner argues that Respondent lacks good moral character based on having been arrested, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding her arrests or failure to timely report them as required by school board policy. Respondent acknowledged that she had been arrested in July 2011 but testified that she had timely reported it, and that the charge ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not offer any competent evidence22/ to counter Respondent's testimony, which is deemed credible and persuasive. Factual Basis for Recommended Sanction The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not purposely set out to violate school policies and Department of Education rules, but that circumstances coalesced such that Respondent found herself in the extremely difficult position of having to care for her very ill son and take him to daycare, then undertake a lengthy commute in morning traffic, without enough time to accomplish both. As unfortunate and trying as those circumstances were, they do not excuse Respondent from complying with the crucial and reasonable requirement that employees arrive to work on time.23/ Nonetheless, the evidence establishes that Respondent is an innovative, proficient teacher in the critical subject areas of science and math, and that she cares about performing her job well——to the extent that she declined an out-of-field teaching assignment, in part due to concern that she would not perform effectively in that assignment. As such, it is reasonable to infer that under less demanding circumstances, such as having a shorter commute or a later workday starting time, Respondent would perform her teaching duties proficiently and professionally. The circumstances in this case warrant upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013- 2014 school year, and denying back pay for the full period of her suspension. However, given the very trying circumstances Respondent faced in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and because the evidence indicates that under less oppressive circumstances Respondent likely would be an innovative, proficient, and professional teacher, the undersigned believes that terminating Respondent's employment would be excessively harsh and that Petitioner would lose a good teacher.
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 upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013-2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of her suspension; and reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014- 2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2014
The Issue Whether or not Respondent is incompetent to teach as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code; and whether or not Respondent's alleged incompetency to teach and perform his duties constitutes just cause to terminate his employment and to terminate his continuing contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the free public schools of Brevard County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and has published bylaws and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is a teacher who was employed by Petitioner from 1976 until his termination in April 2003. He had taught at Palm Bay Elementary from 1984 until 2003. Respondent has a degree in health and physical education. Early in his teaching career he was a classroom teacher; he has taught physical education since 1984. Petitioner conducts annual and interim evaluations of its instructional personnel using a formal Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System. The system delineates specific areas of evaluation, the basis for evaluation, and overall performance scores. The system evaluates nine "performance areas": planning, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, instructional communication, knowledge of subject matter, responsibilities, relationships, management of student conduct, and student evaluation. In addition, there is an overall evaluation. Administrative personnel, in the instant case, the principal and assistant principal, are trained to perform the instructional personnel evaluations. Teachers receive one of three ratings in each performance area: unsatisfactory, needs improvement, or effective. Typically, evaluations are done annually. During his teaching career, Respondent served under five principals. In 1998, Joan Holliday became principal of Palm Bay Elementary. An analysis of the performance evaluations of Respondent's first 22 years of teaching reflects that he was an "effective" and "exemplary" teacher (high ratings during the particular rating periods). The same evaluations reflect recurring, but not consistent, shortcomings in the areas of planning and related responsibilities. In Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Principal Joseph F. Padula, Jr., who had evaluated Respondent from 1984 to 1998, rated him as unsatisfactory in "planning." Comments by Principal Padula describe Respondent's failure to meet the requirements of the Sunshine State Standards and show evidence of "maintaining pace with new curriculum requirements." Principal Joan Holliday's first opportunity to provide an annual evaluation of Respondent was in the 1998-1999 school year. Her assessment reflects Respondent as a teacher who effectively teaches physical education, but could improve in planning, organization, and "could benefit from newer philosophies in physical education." Respondent responded to his 1998-1999 evaluation by letter dated February 25, 1999. The letter is defensive and reflects his opinion that he is making attempts to improve but that he believes that he is an effective physical education teacher. Respondent's 1999-2000 evaluations (there were two interim evaluations during the 1999-2000 school year) reflect that he was responding positively to the previous critical assessments although he continued to struggle with his lesson plans. The evaluations indicate that he was continuing to effectively teach and interact with students. A 2000-2001 interim evaluation, dated December 11, 2000, contains an unsatisfactory rating. This occurs in the "relationships" assessment area and reflects an apparent problem Respondent has related to "kidding" students which was sometimes not well-received and resulted in sporadic complaints from parents. This rating appears to be incongruous with the effective rating he received in "management of student conduct" in the same evaluation. He continued to receive effective ratings in "presentation of subject matter" and "instructional communication." According to Petitioner's Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System, an effective rating describes performance of "high quality" and is the highest rating achievable. The annual evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year rates Respondent unsatisfactory in the "relationships" category. Respondent's "kidding" of students, which caused parental complaints that evoked evaluator's concern and was the apparent basis for the unsatisfactory rating in "relationships" in the 2000-2001 interim and annual evaluations, was clearly subject to interpretation. Testimony did not reveal any "kidding" which would have caused the undersigned to believe Respondent warranted an unsatisfactory rating as defined in the Performance Appraisal System's rating scale definitions. In addition, negative references to Respondent's interaction with "classroom teachers" is not borne out by the testimony. Respondent received five unsatisfactory ratings in his 2001-2002 school year evaluation. He is rated unsatisfactory in "planning," even though it is indicated that Respondent "does turn in his weekly lesson plans," and there is criticism of his failure "to integrate reading, mathematics and writing into [physical education] curricula." At the final hearing, Principal Holliday testified that Respondent's lesson plans for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 were "adequate." He also is rated unsatisfactory in "responsibilities" and "relationships"; these ratings are supported by comments indicating perceived communications and cooperation problems with other faculty. These perceived communications and cooperation problems were not borne out by the testimony of faculty members. On March 11, 2003, immediately prior to his termination, Respondent received six unsatisfactory ratings on an interim appraisal. This interim appraisal is the only evaluation Respondent received during the 2002-2003 school year. The evaluator observes that Respondent continued to fail to indicate in lesson plans how he was integrating writing, reading, and mathematics into his physical education curriculum and that "developmentally appropriate activities should be planned and taught at each class." Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in "instructional communication"; during Principal Holliday's tenure, Respondent had been rated effective (the highest rating) in this area on five occasions. Comments in this category indicate that Respondent "addresses students in a loud, threatening voice." He was rated unsatisfactory in the "responsibilities" category. "Communication with classroom teachers" is referenced in the comments to this category. The unsatisfactory in "relationships" is referenced by a need to continue to "work on his written and oral communication skills with students, parents, and peers." Principal Holliday had determined late in the 2001- 2002 school year that she was going to recommend Respondent for termination by reason of incompetency. As a result, the evidentiary value of this last assessment is questionable. Principal Holliday acknowledges that most of her concerns with Respondent relate to "lesson planning and communication." If Respondent, in fact, had inappropriate communication with students, such communication reflects teacher misconduct, not incompetence. Her testimony reflects that she formally observed Respondent teaching his class infrequently and that when she formally observed, "he did everything he was supposed to do in a correct manner." Principal Holliday's opinions of Respondent's teaching abilities and utilization of new methodology are largely drawn from her review of his lesson plans, not observing Respondent teaching physical education to students. She is critical of Respondent's failure to implement new (sometimes controversial) physical education methodology; however, she acknowledges that none of these new educational theories are mandated. Respondent's lesson plans for his final teaching years were "adequate." As far as Principal Holliday knows all of Respondent's students met the Sunshine State Standards for physical education; the Sunshine State Standards were all noted in his plan book during the final years she evaluated Respondent. The ultimate goal of a teacher is to teach children, not to write lesson plans. During the period of their relationship as principal- teacher, Principal Holliday wrote 29 letters of reprimand to Respondent. There are 58 faculty members at Palm Bay Elementary; during the five years she was principal, Principal Holliday issued four letters of reprimand to other faculty members. Most of the letters of reprimand concern subjects that appear in Respondent's interim and annual evaluations. Six Palm Bay faculty members testified as witnesses for Respondent. They represent 115 cumulative years of teaching experience; each of their teaching careers at Palm Bay Elementary overlap Respondent's, giving each a familiarity with Respondent. While they did not assess Respondent's lesson plans, record and document production, and other administrative details solely in the cognizance of administration, they had ample opportunity to observe Respondent teaching his physical education classes, his interaction with students, his interaction with faculty, his attention to his faculty responsibilities, and other areas formally assessed by the Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System. These informal evaluators collectively report Respondent as "very dependable," having "good rapport with the faculty," appearing to have "well-planned classes," and responsive to suggestions [made by other faculty members] for physical education for younger children, "very helpful." One witness advised, "he jokes with the kids; talks with them in a way they understand." One witness offered the unsolicited comment, "we really consider him to be an asset to the school because of his rapport with some of the older children. It's really nice to have him there." A witness who had early morning bus duty with Respondent reported that he was punctual and dependable. Nothing reported by any of these teacher/witnesses suggests a lack of teaching competency; in fact, their testimony suggests that Respondent was a good teacher. The evidence presented by Respondent's teaching contemporaries, admittedly not trained evaluators, presents a dramatically different assessment of Respondent's teaching performance than does that offered by Petitioner. The testimony of Respondent's teaching peers is credible. The assistant principal, who authored critical interim evaluations, testified that she did not witness Respondent interact with any student in an inappropriate way, except that he spoke loudly on occasion; that when she observed him teaching, the children appeared to be learning; that he conducted class in an appropriate and effective way; and that, recently, he appeared to be complying with Sunshine State Standards in terms of developing students' physical skills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent should not have been terminated and reinstating his continuing employment contract effective the date of his termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier & Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Post Office Box 8248 Cocoa, Florida 32924-8248 Alan S. Diamond, Esquire Amari & Theriac, P.A. 96 Willard Street, Suite 302 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Richard A. DiPatri, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties. 1. The Petitioner is the Bradford County School Board. 2. The Respondent is Dewey McKinney, an employee of the School Board. 3. Mr. McKinney served as a school principal for the School Board for approximately nineteen years, including the period from approximately November, 1988, to October 14, 1991. Mr. McKinney previously served as an assistant principal for four years. Mr. McKinney was employed as "principal" pursuant to a Continuing Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools entered into between Mr. McKinney and the School Board on or about March 5, 1974. Respondent's exhibit 8. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. McKinney was employed by the School Board. The evidence failed to prove that the School Board has taken any other disciplinary action against Mr. McKinney. Mr. McKinney's Requests to Lula Marie Thornton for Prescription Drugs. Lula Marie Thornton was hired in 1976 by Mr. McKinney as school secretary at Starke Elementary School. Ms. Thornton worked for Mr. McKinney from 1976 to 1977 and from 1988 until 1991. In September or October, 1989, Ms. Thornton fractured her elbow. Ms. Thornton's physician prescribed Tylenol III, which contains codeine, a controlled substance. Ms. Thornton took the Tylenol III to school with her the day after injuring her arm in case the pain became severe. Mr. McKinney noticed Ms. Thornton's injury and inquired about it. Mr. McKinney specifically asked Ms. Thornton what medications her physician had prescribed. Ms. Thornton told Mr. McKinney that she had been prescribed Tylenol III and showed him the prescription bottle. Mr. McKinney told Ms. Thornton that he had been experiencing severe headaches at night. Mr. McKinney asked Ms. Thornton if he could take a couple of her Tylenol III pills so that he could take them at night to help him sleep. Mr. McKinney also told Ms. Thornton that he had taken Tylenol III for his headaches before. Ms. Thornton was aware that Mr. McKinney had a history of migraine headaches and that he took prescription medication. Ms. Thornton acquiesced to Mr. McKinney's request and Mr. McKinney took a couple of the pills from the bottle. Ms. Thornton did not see Mr. McKinney take any of the pills she gave him. Ms. Thornton was aware that it was improper to give the prescription medication to Mr. McKinney. Even so, she gave him the pills because he was her boss and she considered him a friend. Mr. McKinney was Ms. Thornton's immediate supervisor and Ms. Thornton knew he would have a great deal of influence in the decision of the Superintendent as to whether her annual employment contract was renewed. She also knew that Mr. McKinney signed her annual contract. Consequently, she did not refuse Mr. McKinney's request. Because Ms. Thornton was aware that it was improper to give another person her prescription medications, Ms. Thornton felt very uncomfortable about Mr. McKinney's request and her acquiescence to his request. She did not take the medication back to school after this incident. A couple of nights after Ms. Thornton allowed Mr. McKinney to take some of the Tylenol III, Mr. McKinney telephoned her at her home. This was the first time that Mr. McKinney had ever telephoned Ms. Thornton at her home. Mr. McKinney informed Ms. Thornton that he was experiencing severe headaches, that Tylenol III helped him sleep and asked her whether she still had any of her Tylenol III left. Ms. Thornton told Mr. McKinney that she had some of the medication left. Mr. McKinney then asked Ms. Thornton if she would bring him some of Tylenol III the next day. Despite the fact that Ms. Thornton believed that it was wrong to give anyone else her prescription medications, she told Mr. McKinney that she would bring him some of her Tylenol III. Ms. Thornton again acquiesced to Mr. McKinney's request because he was her immediate supervisor. She felt very uncomfortable, however, with Mr. McKinney's request. The next morning, Ms. Thornton intentionally left the Tylenol III at home and told Mr. McKinney that she had forgotten to bring it. Mr. McKinney replied, "okay." Lying to Mr. McKinney made her feel very uncomfortable. In both incidents, Ms. Thornton was concerned about the possibility of losing her job if she refused Mr. McKinney's request. She was also aware that it was improper to give Mr. McKinney drugs that had been prescribed for her use. These mixed feelings, brought on by Mr. McKinney's requests, caused Ms. Thornton to feel uncomfortable, nervous and upset. Mr. McKinney did not request medication from Ms. Thornton at any other time not reflected in the foregoing findings of fact. Nor did Mr. McKinney act aggravated or express any displeasure toward Ms. Thornton. Mr. McKinney's Requests to Edna Allen for Prescription Drugs. Edna Allen has been employed at Starke Elementary School since 1970. She worked in the same general area as Ms. Thornton. During 1991, Ms. Allen's immediate supervisor was Mr. McKinney. In April or May, 1991, Ms. Allen went to the dentist because of an abscessed tooth. The dentist prescribed a controlled substance, hydrocodone, to relieve Ms. Allen's pain. After receiving the pain medication, Ms. Allen was explaining her dental problem to Ms. Thornton and Geraldine Tomlinson, a clerical employee at Starke Elementary School. Ms. Allen told Ms. Thornton and Ms. Tomlinson what medication she had been given and showed them the bottle. Mr. McKinney was in the same room at the time that Ms. Allen was talking to Ms. Thornton and Ms. Tomlinson. After returning to her desk, Ms. Allen noticed Mr. McKinney come into her area and go into a closet where student awards were kept. Mr. McKinney made several trips in and out of the area. Ms. Allen had not seen Mr. McKinney go into the closet before and she became nervous. After making several trips into the closet, Mr. McKinney stopped at Ms. Allen's desk. He began to tell her that he had a severe headache and asked her for some of her pain pills. Ms. Allen acquiesced and gave him four pills. Ms. Allen felt very nervous and upset over Mr. McKinney's request for her prescription medication. She knew that it was wrong to give him the pills but she also knew that he was her boss. Ms. Allen was worried about the possible adverse consequences to her employment and her evaluations if she declined to give Mr. McKinney the pills. Ms. Allen told Ms. Thornton and Ms. Tomlinson about the incident. They told Ms. Allen that she should not bring prescription pain medication to the office because of Mr. McKinney. Therefore, Ms. Allen only brought one pill with her the next day in her purse. The next morning, Mr. McKinney again asked Ms. Allen for some of her pain pills. Ms. Allen lied to Mr. McKinney and told him that she had not brought any medication with her. Ms. Allen felt very upset and nervous as a result of Mr. McKinney's request. The foregoing events caused Ms. Allen to be distracted from performing her job fully for a day or two. Other than the incidents described in the foregoing findings of fact, Mr. McKinney did not ask Ms. Allen for any medications. Mr. McKinney's Removal as Principal of Starke Elementary School. In the fall of 1991, medications maintained for students at Starke Elementary School were tampered with. As a result of this incident, and the fact that Mr. McKinney was the Principal, Finley J. Duncan, Superintendent of Bradford County Schools from January, 1985, until November, 1992, recommended to the School Board that Mr. McKinney be transferred to Bradford High School as Assistant Principal. At the time of this recommendation, Mr. Duncan believed that Mr. McKinney could meet the responsibilities of assistant principal. Mr. Duncan's recommendation to the School Board was rejected. Mr. Duncan then decided, and Mr. McKinney agreed, that Mr. McKinney should be transferred to the position of Director of General Services, the position that Mr. Duncan currently holds. This agreement between Mr. Duncan and Mr. McKinney was intended to resolve the matter involving the missing medications. It was not intended, however, to resolve any of the charges which are the subject of this proceeding. At the time of Mr. Duncan's recommendation to the School Board that Mr. McKinney be assigned as an assistant principal, Mr. Duncan had been told of accusations against Mr. McKinney concerning requests for medications from coworkers. Assistant Superintendent of Bradford County Schools, Wayne McLeod, had reported to Mr. Duncan that he had been hearing comments concerning Mr. McKinney requesting medications from coworkers. Mr. Duncan, however, took the position that he had no direct evidence that Mr. McKinney had requested medications from coworkers, i.e., no person told him that they had been asked for medications. Consequently, Mr. Duncan did not take any action against Mr. McKinney. While the information that Mr. Duncan had received concerning Mr. McKinney may have been sufficient to warrant further investigation, the evidence failed to prove that any information concerning Mr. McKinney's possible solicitation of medications should have been relied upon by Mr. Duncan to take any action against Mr. McKinney. Nor did the evidence prove that Mr. Duncan, in deciding that Mr. McKinney could effectively fulfill the responsibilities of the position of Director of General Services in the fall of 1991, should have considered the rumors concerning Mr. McKinney. Mr. McKinney's Arrest and Suspension by the School Board. In March, 1992, Mr. Duncan learned from the State Attorney's Office of an investigation of Mr. McKinney. This was the first time that Mr. Duncan learned of the requests for medications from Mr. McKinney to Ms. Thornton and Ms. Allen. On or about April 1, 1992, Mr. McKinney was arrested and charged by information in the Circuit Court for Bradford County with twelve felony counts. Two of those counts involved Mr. McKinney's request for prescription drugs from Ms. Thornton and Ms. Allen. The other counts related to alleged incidents which are not a part of the School Board's charges in this case. As a result of the charges against Mr. McKinney, and in particular, the two counts involving Ms. Thornton and Ms. Allen, Mr. Duncan filed a petition in April, 1992, with the School Board seeking to suspend Mr. McKinney as an employee of the School Board. The petition was amended in June, 1992, to seek Mr. McKinney's dismissal from employment with the School Board. In particular, Mr. Duncan recommended Mr. McKinney's dismissal due to events described in findings of fact 4-20 and 21-30. The Impact of Mr. McKinney's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. While serving as Principal and as Director of General Services, Mr. McKinney received relatively high ratings for his performance. Those ratings, however, did not take into account the specific actions which are the subject of this proceeding. Mr. Duncan made several statements during his testimony which, if considered alone, may indicate that his recommendation that Mr. McKinney be dismissed and his opinion's concerning whether Mr. McKinney can effectively continue to work for the School Board, is based upon the total number of felony counts Mr. McKinney has been charged with. Mr. Duncan's testimony must be considered as a whole, however. A consideration of all of Mr. Duncan's testimony does not support a finding that his opinions concerning Mr. McKinney's effectiveness are based upon the total number of felony counts Mr. McKinney was charged with. Based upon all of Mr. Duncan's testimony, Mr. Duncan has recommended Mr. McKinney's dismissal, and has concluded that Mr. McKinney can no longer effectively carry out his responsibilities with the School Board because of the events involving Ms. Thornton and Ms. Allen, as described in the amended petition. Mr. McKinney's actions, as described in findings of fact 4-30, involve improper solicitation of controlled substances, placed subordinate employees in an untenable position and constitute the improper use of Mr. McKinney's position and power for his own personal gain. Based upon the nature of the events described in findings of fact 4- 30, Mr. McKinney requested that Ms. Thornton and Ms. Allen, persons under his immediate supervision, provide him with controlled substances in possible violation of criminal laws of the State of Florida. These actions have detrimentally impacted Mr. McKinney's ability to have effective working relationships with persons under his supervision. The community's awareness of Mr. McKinney's actions with Ms. Thornton and Ms. Allen as a result of the smallness of the community, has detrimentally impacted Mr. McKinney's ability to effectively work for the School Board. Mr. McKinney has caused public disrespect for himself and the education profession. Mr. McKinney's effectiveness as a principal and administrator for the School Board has been impaired as a result of the acts described in findings of fact 4-30.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of willful absence from duty, in violation of Section 1012.67, Florida Statutes; willful neglect of duty, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes; gross insubordination, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes; and incompetence, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as a part-time cafeteria worker at Ludlam Elementary School. Except for the manager, all food workers at the school are part-time employees. The absence of any of these workers, especially without notice on the morning of the nonappearance, places a considerable burden on the other cafeteria workers and jeopardizes the provision of what may be the first meal of the day for many students. By January 24, 2002, Respondent had been absent 16 days, including the four consecutive days preceding Christmas vacation, four of five days in mid-January, and January 22-24, 2002. Responding to this problem, the school principal sent Respondent a memorandum dated January 24 and ordering her to notify the principal of when Respondent intended to return to work and use leave procedures in the future. On the same date, the principal sent another memorandum to Respondent ordering her to communicate directly to the principal when Respondent intended to be absent and document future absences with medical excuses. Respondent signed this memorandum, indicating receipt. On Sunday, January 27, 2002, Respondent telephoned the principal and told her that Respondent would be returning to work the following day. The next day, when Respondent appeared at work, the principal talked to her about Respondent's professional responsibilities and offered to refer her to the Employee Assistance Program for help with a problem with alcohol that Respondent said that she had. Respondent declined the offer and said she would follow the principal's orders. The next day, Respondent arrived to work late. The following day, Respondent did not report to work or call in to notify the school of her absence. The two succeeding days, Respondent did not report to work, but she called the principal to say that she was in the hospital. However, on the last day of the week, Respondent did not report to work and did not call in. On February 11, 2002, the principal conducted a conference-for-the-record (CFR) with Respondent. Respondent said that she had been a recovering alcoholic for 15 years and had been encountering problems with alcohol since October. The principal again offered a referral to the Employee Assistance Program, but Respondent said that she was already in counseling. The principal warned Respondent that further noncompliance with her order would be gross insubordination. On February 19 and 20, 2002, Respondent was again absent and again failed to notify anyone at school of her absence. On the next day, the principal sent another warning memorandum to Respondent. On February 26 and March 11, 2002, Respondent again missed work and again failed to call anyone at the school. Respondent never provided medical documentation for these absences. Also, on March 5 and 8, 2002, Respondent was tardy without calling in to say that she would be late. On March 11, Respondent also failed to attend an appointment that the principal had scheduled for her with the Employee Assistance Program. Respondent told the principal that she would reschedule the appointment, but later failed to appear at this appointment. On September 20, 2002, the district office conducted a CFR. Out of 18 workdays in the new 2002-03 school year, Respondent had already missed four. For the prior school year, Respondent had been absent 47 times and late 11 times. Of the 47 absences, Respondent never called the principal 23 times and never even called the school 11 times. Respondent at first claimed that she had only been absence once that school year, but later admitted to four absences. She then explained that two of the absences were due to a job interview and an accident at the train station. On January 16, 2003, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had suspended her and initiated dismissal proceedings for the reasons set forth above. Petitioner has proved that Respondent is guilty of willful absence from duty without leave by repeated absences without leave and without notification on the day of the absence; willful neglect of duty by repeated absences, repeated failures to advise the school of absences, and repeated failures to provide medical documentation for absences; gross insubordination for the repeated disregard of the principal's order to call in before absences and document absences; and incompetence for the failure to perform her job duties adequately.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Denise Wallace Legal Department The School Board of Miami-Dade County 1452 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carleen Braddy 1884 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33142
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact During the 1991/1992 school year, the Respondent, Patricia Albritton, was teaching in the Pinellas County Public School System under an annual Professional Service Contract, renewable from year to year as determined by the School Board. She was an "itinerant teacher," meaning she had classroom assignments at various schools. Her base school was Azalea Middle School, where she taught a strings orchestra class at 1:30 p.m., and then had a teacher planning period before end of the school day dismissal. On March 18, 1992, shortly after the bell rang for the beginning of the strings class at Azalea Middle School, the Respondent entered the class and, in preparation for the class, requested that the pupils rearrange the chairs in semi-circles to simulate the seating arrangement for an upcoming concert. The class was noisy, and many of the pupils either did not hear or ignored her instructions despite her having raised her voice to get their attention. Frustrated and angry, the Respondent picked up a wooden chair to almost face level and slammed it to the floor. In the process, she lost her grip on the chair, and it slammed to the floor with enough force for one leg of the chair to crack. She then asked the class a question to the effect of, "do I have to do cartwheels to get your attention?" As she turned away from the class, perhaps in response to a pupil's question as to why the class was being required to give a concert performance, the Respondent also mumbled to herself, but in a voice loud enough for some of the pupils to hear: "I'm getting so tired of this damn class." After this incident, the Respondent either set the chair to the side or put it in the adjoining supply room where the Respondent generally stored music stands. One or more of the pupils who tended to be the class troublemakers, or clowns, retrieved the broken chair, and one of them purposely sat on it and appeared to fake falling to the floor. The fall did not appear to be of the kind likely to have injured the pupil in any serious way. Nonetheless, the pupil complained that his head hurt and asked for permission to go to the clinic. The Respondent, who had observed the apparent fakery and knew the propensities of the pupil involved, declined permission, believing it was yet another in a series of ploys to get out of class. She said something to the effect of, "you were stupid to sit on the broken chair." When the pupil persisted in saying his head hurt, the Respondent mocked him, saying words to the effect, "oh, you poor baby." After the incident, the parents of the pupil who tried to fake falling in the broken chair became upset with the Respondent and took their son out of the Respondent's strings class. Two other parents expressed concern, primarily about the Respondent's angry outburst and throwing the chair. Otherwise, there was no evidence that the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was impaired as a result of the incident. She had no difficulties at any of the other schools where she taught. The Respondent has been a teacher in the Pinellas County School System for ten years. Aside from some criticism for being tardy in 1986, the Respondent generally was not seriously criticized for deficiencies in her teaching ability or other aspects of her work in the earlier years of her teaching career. On November 10 and December 4, 1989, the Respondent received written reprimands for poor judgment. The former reprimand included criticism for using inappropriate language loud enough for her pupils to hear her. Her performance evaluation for the 1990/1991 school year included criticism in the areas of judgment and interpersonal relationships with parents and children, and it expressed the need for improvement in those areas. At the beginning of the 1991/1992 school year, the Respondent was put on an annual comprehensive evaluation cycle. An October 23, 1991, appraisal of her instructional performance in a pre-arranged visit to her class by the assistant principal reflected that the Respondent was satisfactory in all areas. In mid-January, 1992, the Respondent grabbed a pupil at Azalea Middle School (the same boy who later faked falling in the broken chair) by the shoulders and shook him to get his attention. As a result, the Respondent's assistant principal cautioned the Respondent to exercise better judgment and, in keeping with School Board policy, to keep her hands off pupils she is reprimanding. A March 5, 1992, appraisal of her performance in non-instructional areas reflected improvement in that her judgment was rated satisfactory. After the March 18, 1992, incident, her rating for management of student conduct again was lowered to "needs improvement."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order that, notwithstanding evidence of poor judgment, as set above, the Respondent, Patricia Albritton, not be suspended for three days without pay. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 4th day of November, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williams has been employed by the School Board for 15 years and is currently a 12-month custodian at Longwood Elementary School (School), located in Seminole County, Florida. As a 12-month custodian, Ms. Williams is allowed sick and annual leave. Ms. Williams requested leave beginning July 7, 2010, to September 29, 2010, for back surgery. On August 10, 2010, the School received a letter dated July 8, 2010, from Ms. Williams's physician, advising that Ms. Williams had undergone surgery for a spinal disorder on July 7, 2010, and would need 12 weeks to recover prior to returning to work. On October 1, 2010, Ms. Williams called the School and advised that she was not able to return to work and requested leave from September 30, 2010, through October 28, 2010. Her physician sent a letter dated September 30, 2010, to the School, advising that Ms. Williams would need an additional four weeks for recovery. By this time, Ms. Williams had exhausted all her paid leave and was on leave without pay. Ms. Williams was unable to come to the School to sign the application for leave; however, the leave was approved by the principal of the School, Virginia Fisher (Ms. Fisher), who was Ms. Williams's direct supervisor. By November 2, 2010, Ms. Williams was still unable to return to work, and her physician sent another letter to the School, advising that Ms. Williams would need an additional four weeks for recovery. Ms. Williams requested leave from November 2, 2010, to November 30, 2010. Again, Ms. Williams was unable to come to the School to sign the application for leave, but it was approved by Ms. Fisher. By December 1, 2010, Ms. Williams was still unable to return to work and requested leave from December 1, 2010, through January 3, 2011. Her physician sent a letter to the School, stating that Ms. Williams needed an additional four weeks for recovery. Ms. Williams was unable to come to the School to sign the application, and the leave request was approved by Ms. Fisher. Ms. Williams's physician sent a letter dated December 27, 2010, to the School, stating that Ms. Williams had not quite reached maximum medical improvement with respect to her recovery and that he would need to see her in four weeks for reevaluation. Ms. Williams signed and submitted an application for leave for January 4, 2011, through January 24, 2011. The leave was approved. Ms. Williams's physician submitted a Return to Work/School Certificate dated January 21, 2011, to the School, stating that Ms. Williams would be able to return to work on January 24, 2011, with the following restrictions: "light duty with no repetitive lifting over her head, lifting restriction of = 30 lbs." Ms. Williams discussed the issue of light duty with Steve Bouzianis (Mr. Bouzianis), director of Human Resources, Staffing and Operations for the School Board. She told him that she had been advised by staff at the School that she needed to come back to work or submit a request for additional leave. Mr. Bouzianis informed her that she could not do the custodial job with the restrictions set by her physician. Ms. Williams was advised to submit a request for leave and was told that it would be approved. By February 18, 2011, Ms. Williams had not submitted a request for leave or submitted a letter from her physician stating that she needed to be absent from work due to an illness. By letter dated February 18, 2011, Ms. Fisher enclosed a leave request form and directed Ms. Williams to complete the form and return it to her, along with a physician's statement substantiating Ms. Williams's need for her absences no later than February 23, 2011. Ms. Fisher further advised that, if Ms. Williams could not obtain a physician's statement, Ms. Fisher would approve the leave for the remainder of the year as personal leave without pay. Ms. Fisher advised in the letter of the consequences for failure to request leave and stated: Should you fail to return to me your signed request for leave form and the supporting physician's statement (if applicable) by the date identified above [February 23, 2011], you will be considered as absent from duty without approved leave, and in violation of adopted School Board policy. In that event, the Superintendent of Schools will recommend to the School Board that you be suspended from your duties and further that your employment with the School Board of Seminole County, Florida[,] be terminated. The School received a letter dated February 22, 2011, from Ms. Williams's physician, who stated that Ms. Williams could return to work on January 24, 2011, with the same restrictions previously listed on the Return to Work/School Certificate. On February 23, 2011, Cynthia Frye (Ms. Frye), who is Ms. Fisher's assistant, attempted to call Ms. Williams at her sister's telephone number, which is the number that Ms. Williams had given the School to contact in case of an emergency. At the time, Ms. Williams was living with her sister and staying some of the time with her son. Ms. Frye called at 2:37 p.m., and got no answer, and called again at 3:15 p.m., at which time she spoke to Ms. Williams's sister. Ms. Frye told the sister that it was important that Ms. Williams call Ms. Frye. Ms. Williams had not called Ms. Frye by the morning of February 24, 2011. Ms. Frye attempted to call Ms. Williams twice during the morning of February 24, 2011, and three times during the afternoon. On the last call, she left a message with Ms. Williams's sister that it was imperative that Ms. Williams call Ms. Frye that night or Ms. Frye could not help Ms. Williams. By March 4, 2011, the School still had not heard from Ms. Williams. Ms. Fisher sent Ms. Williams a letter dated March 4, 2011, stating that, because Ms. Williams had not contacted the School to request leave, Ms. Williams's absences since January 25, 2011, were considered as absences from duty without approved leave. Ms. Fisher advised Ms. Williams that, based on Ms. Williams's third and continuing absences, Ms. Fisher would recommend to the superintendent of schools that Ms. Williams's employment with the Seminole County Public Schools be terminated. When questioned at the final hearing concerning her reasoning for not requesting leave, Ms. Williams indicated that she wanted to work, but the School would not let her come back to work with light duty restrictions. She contacted her attorney and, based on his advice, did not request leave. Ms. Williams's employment is governed by the Official Agreement between the Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction Association, Inc., and the School Board (Agreement). Article VII of the Agreement provides: Section 4. * * * B. A regular employee who has been hired for four (4) or more years may only be terminated for just cause except as otherwise provided in A. above. * * * Section 5. A. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following provided that just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy Violation of work rules Insubordination--Refusal to follow a proper directive, order, or assignment from a supervisor While on duty, the possession and/or the use of intoxicating beverages or controlled substances after reporting for work and until after the employees leaves the work site after the equipment, if applicable, has been checked in Endangering the health, safety or welfare of any student or employee of the District The conviction of a felony in the State of Florida or notice of conviction of a substantially parallel offense in another jurisdiction An act committed while off duty, which because of its publication through the media or otherwise adversely affects the employee's performance or duties, or disrupts the operations of the District, its schools, or other work/cost centers Excessive tardiness Damage to School Board property Improper use of sick leave Failure to perform assigned duties Other infractions, as set forth from time to time in writing and disseminated by the Superintendent or designee. * * * Section 11. Absence Without Leave Employees will be considered absent without leave if they fail to notify their principal, appropriate director or supervisor that they will be absent from duty and the reason for such absence. Absence without leave is a breach of contract and may be grounds for immediate dismissal. * * * Section 15. Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense--Written reprimand and one day suspension without pay. 2nd Offense--Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense--Recommendation for termination. Each day that an employee is AWOL shall be considered a separate offense. However, any documentation of offenses in this section shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Ms. Williams's employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 28th day of July, 2011.
