The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board (the "School Board") has just cause to terminate the employment contract of Respondent, Natalie Santagata, based upon loss of effectiveness as a teacher due to scandalous materials being disseminated to School Board employees and parents.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of the School, which is an elementary school within the Charlotte County Public School system. The School is an "A-rated" school with approximately 650 students and 45 members of the teaching staff. At all times relevant hereto, Santagata was employed at the School under a professional services contract. At the time of her termination from employment by the School Board, Santagata was teaching fifth grade at the School. She had been teaching at the School for approximately four years, having transferred from Peace River Elementary School. By all accounts, Santagata was an excellent teacher when she was hired to work at the School. She was hired to teach third-graders, an important grade due to the "no-child- left-behind" requirements associated with that grade level. Santagata was a "stellar" teacher according to the school principal. When she first came to the School, she taught third grade. Then, she "looped" to fourth grade the next year. One hundred percent of her students' parents agreed to allow their children to loop with her so she could continue teaching them. Santagata continued to be an excellent teacher at the School. However, in the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, things began to change. At the start of the school year Santagata was operating at about the same proficiency level as in previous years, but in November her supervisor and co-workers began to notice disturbing changes in Santagata's appearance and demeanor. She began to show up at work in a somewhat disheveled state, she began to lose a noticeable amount of weight, and she was absent from the classroom more than usual. There were reports that Santagata was leaving her co-teacher alone in the room with the students more frequently. Her co-teacher at that time was a teacher with three years' experience as a teacher, but was in her first year at the School. Santagata was, however, never unable to perform her duties as a teacher during the school year. Santagata was experiencing significant difficulties in her personal life at the time she began to struggle as a teacher. She was going through a very unpleasant divorce and was undergoing extreme stress and anxiety because of that event. Beginning late in 2010 and continuing into the early months of 2011, Santagata showed signs that she was not performing up to her normally excellent standards. According to her principal, Santagata began to lose her "with-it-ness," i.e., her ability to maintain interaction and involvement with her students and their parents. One day, Santagata did not show up for work. When the principal called, Santagata said she had overslept. Santagata, ultimately, made it to work, but she was late and was admonished for that failure on her part. As her concerns about Santagata grew, the principal began to take more frequent "walk-throughs" in Santagata's classroom as a means of monitoring her more effectively. As a result of her observations during those walk-throughs, the principal decided to offer Santagata some help by way of the employee assistance program. The program provides teachers a way to deal with private and personal problems more effectively in order to maintain professionalism in their classrooms. The program was first discussed with Santagata in November of the 2010-2011 school year when the principal first learned Santagata was going through her divorce. The program was offered a second time in January after Santagata's behavior and demeanor began to change even more. There was no evidence as to whether Santagata availed herself of the employee assistance program. At about the time Santagata began showing signs of stress, the School received a few anonymous telephone calls from individuals saying that Santagata was using drugs and making inappropriate life choices. The School knew that Santagata's estranged husband was attempting to hurt her in any way he could. It was believed that he may be the source of the anonymous calls. The School also received an anonymous email advising about a You-Tube video purportedly showing Santagata in a room where other people were apparently smoking marijuana. When confronted with those allegations, Santagata voluntarily agreed to take a drug test to prove her innocence. The School decided not to test Santagata at that time. At a school field day held in the spring, a couple of parents reported to a teacher that Santagata looked "terrible." The teacher reported the observation to the principal, who went to see for herself. The principal found Santagata not to be up to her normal standards, but she did not look terrible. Shortly thereafter, the principal received another anonymous email saying Santagata was abusing drugs. At that time, the School decided to ask Santagata to submit to a drug test. Santagata was placed on administrative leave pending the result of the test, and when the test returned with a negative result, Santagata was reinstated. The reinstatement occurred just a few days before the end of the 2010-2011 school year. After the conclusion of the school year, various administrators at the School received packages from an anonymous sender. The packages contained videos and still photographs that purported to be Santagata engaged in sexual activities and smoking marijuana. The person in the videos and photographs resembled Santagata. The school principal recognized Santagata's house from one of the videos or still photographs. However, there was no verification that the person in the videos and photographs was indeed Santagata. Santagata neither admitted, nor denied that the videos and photographs were of her. One of the videos shows a woman engaging in oral sex with a man. Both appear to be adults and the sexual activity appears to be consensual. The videos also show the man and woman smoking cigarettes, but holding the cigarettes between the thumb and forefinger, i.e., in the manner which is generally associated with smoking marijuana cigarettes. The man in the videos at one point asked the woman whether she was "high" or some such reference to drug use. One of the videos also shows the woman moving from room to room, seemingly gathering clothes and other items as if she were packing. The man and woman appear to be angry at each other during this particular video. The woman appears to be preparing to terminate whatever relationship existed with the man. Once the videos were received at the School Board, they were turned over to the School Board security officer so that an investigation could be conducted. As part of the investigation, the security officer reviewed the videos and pictures, pleadings and other documents concerning Santagata's divorce proceedings, newspaper articles, and other documents. The officer interviewed school employees, but did not interview any parents of students from the School. The officer did not interview Santagata. Mrs. Mangiafico, a parent of students at the school, also received the pictures that had been sent to the School and School Board. Mangiafico's children were never in Santagata's classroom, but they were friends with Santagata's children. Mangiafico may have, at the time she turned over the pictures to the School, stated that she did not want Santagata teaching her children. However, she considered Santagata to be an excellent teacher and that "everybody wanted their kid in her class." Mangiafico did not know whether any other parents of students received the videos or pictures. She did not believe there had been any change in Santagata's reputation as a result of the pictures being disseminated. A local newspaper published an article about Santagata saying she was under investigation due to "inappropriate photos" the School had received. The article was published on August 10, 2011. There is no mention in the article as to what the photographs may have depicted. The School Board recognized that Santagata was not responsible for releasing the videos and pictures. It was, however, concerned about the possible perception of the School and Santagata by the general public. Specifically, the superintendent worried that "because the pictures and videos had been sent out to parents, that would affect [Santagata's] effectiveness in the classroom." The School principal was concerned about "the doubt that was placed in parents' minds" about Santagata as a teacher. Likewise, the assistant superintendent's concern was that once the pictures got out into the public, "it would lessen her effect [sic] as a teacher." The School Board was genuinely worried that if the videos and pictures were distributed more widely, the School may experience some negative public scrutiny. The School and School Board took strong measures to ensure that they were not the source of dissemination of the information to the public, but they could not be sure that some anonymous person might do so. Based upon those concerns, the School Board decided to terminate Santagata's employment. Santagata was offered the opportunity to resign, rather than being fired, but she refused to do so. Santagata was placed on administrative leave with pay, effective August 1, 2011. On September 6, 2011, the School Board voted to terminate Santagata's employment; she was notified by letter the next day. According to the superintendent of schools and the School principal, the pictures and videos were not sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant discipline against Santagata, nor had any discipline been imposed against Santagata prior to her being placed on administrative leave. The basis of the School Board's action was simply the possibility that Santagata may lose her effectiveness, if the public was made aware of the photographs and videos.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board, rescinding the termination of Respondent, Natalie Santagata's, employment and that she be reinstated to her position with back pay and benefits for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Douglas Whittaker, Superintendent Charlotte County School Board 1445 Education Way Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1052 Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether it was appropriate for Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Curtis Brown, under Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (2007), due to his failure to correct performance deficiencies after having been placed on Professional Services Contract Probation for 90 days, in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t); his "incompetence," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); his "insubordination," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); and his failure to comply with "School Board Policy, State Law or the Appropriate Contractual Agreement," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(x) and Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).
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 public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a math teacher at Johns Hopkins Middle School and has a Professional Services Contract. Petitioner employs a formalized teacher evaluation process that assesses 25 teaching "expectations." These "expectations" are grouped in three related categories: Highest Student Achievement, Safe Learning Environment, and Effective and Efficient Operations. Each "expectation" receives one of four ratings: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, In Progress, and Not Evident. Assessments are made on specific and detailed indicia during observations, interviews, and review of data regarding student achievement. Depending on the number of indicia observed for each of the "expectations," a teacher receives a proficiency rating of Level 1 through 4, with Level 4 being the highest. Below a Level 1 is considered unsatisfactory. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There are approximately 8,000 teachers in Pinellas County. Of the 8,000, 23 were rated unsatisfactory for the 2007-08 school year; only three were rated unsatisfactory for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. A state requirement of teacher appraisal includes student performance and learning gains for each student in a teacher's class. The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT") is probably the most notorious student achievement data source in Florida. Unfortunately, the FCAT scores become available in July. Most annual teacher assessments are completed in April of each school year. However, there are other student achievement data sources that can be appropriately used in assessing student performance and learning gains. They include teacher-made pre- and post-tests, district developed assessments, student grades, and curriculum developed assessments. A teacher may offer any of these data sources during his or her evaluation. Because Respondent had received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2006-07 school year, administrators at his school and from the district office provided special attention and direction during the first months of the 2007-08 school year designed to help Respondent improve his teaching performance. The efforts of the administration were not successful. Respondent was placed on a 90-day probation period on January 14, 2008. He was advised of his unsatisfactory performance. At the same time, he received a revised "success plan" and a copy of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Respondent received several formal observations and critiques during the probation period. Petitioner provided the requisite assistance, direction, and on-going assessment. During the 90-day probationary period, Respondent did not respond to specific corrective direction given him by administrators regarding a myriad of basic administrative details, teaching techniques, and methodology. Respondent's annual evaluation took place on April 24, 2008, after the conclusion of the 90-day probation. Even though requested, Respondent failed to provide any documentation of positive classroom results. Even though Respondent failed to present any evidence of positive classroom results, the evaluator (the school assistant principal) had monitored potential classroom progress through various data available to him. He failed to note any positive trend. Respondent received 19 "Not Evident" ratings in 25 "Expectations" and an unsatisfactory rating. Respondent's performance problems were increasing in spite of a concerted effort by the administration to correct the trend. In the 2005-06 school year, he received six "Not Evident" ratings; in 2006-07, 14 "Not Evident" ratings; and in 2007-2008, 19 "Not Evident" ratings. Over the several years contemplated by the testimony of school administrators who had supervisory authority over Respondent, he failed to teach the subject matter assigned, failed to complete lesson plans correctly and timely, failed to use a particular math teaching software program (River Deep) as required, failed to take attendance, and did not use the required grading software. In each instance he was encouraged and, then specifically directed, to comply with established policy regarding these areas of teaching responsibility; and yet, he failed to do so. Respondent's teaching record contains memos regarding the following: Two formal conferences regarding use of excessive force (12/6/02 and 10/29/03); A formal conference regarding growing number of parent concerns over penalizing students on academic work for behavioral problems and giving students F's for assignments that they couldn't complete due to lost work books (11/3/2004); A formal conference summary involving several issues including instructional methodology, leaving students unsupervised in class and leaving campus early (1/24/2005); Three reprimands for disparaging remarks made to or about students (1/19/05, 2/16/05, 4/02/07); A 15-day suspension for falling asleep in class and again leaving students unattended in class (7/12/2005); A formal conference summary for again leaving students unattended in the classroom and unsupervised outside of the classroom door (2/9/2007); and A formal conference summaries for missing a meeting and not turning in lesson plans and IPDP's (12/04/07, 1/29/08, 3/03/08).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Curtis Brown's, Professional Services Contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Julie M. Janssen Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether St. Lucie County School Board (School Board) Rules 6.16 and 6.50*+ are invalid exercises in delegated legislative authority as defined by sections 120.52(8)(c), (d), and (e).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Jones is currently an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board, and has a professional service contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Her status with the School Board is “suspended without pay,” for reasons that are not relevant to this proceeding. As a classroom teacher, Ms. Jones is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of St. Lucie County and the Classroom Teachers Association. On June 13, 2017, the School Board suspended Ms. Jones without pay and on July 27, 2017, a Petition for Termination in Termination I was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. At that point, while Ms. Jones remained an employee of the School Board, she received no pay and no benefits from the School District. She began to look for other employment to support herself and her family. Ms. Jones applied to and was offered a job to work as a music teacher by the Somerset Academy St. Lucie (Somerset). Somerset is a charter school in St. Lucie County sponsored by and located within the geographical bounds of the School District and the jurisdictional bounds of the School Board. Ms. Jones did not submit an application for leave and the School Board did not approve a request for leave of absence in order for Ms. Jones to work at Somerset. By letter dated August 28, 2017, Superintendent Gent notified Ms. Jones of his intent to recommended to the School Board that she be terminated for grounds in addition to the already-existing suspension, i.e., for violating the School Board’s Rules 6.16(1); 6.301(2), (3)(b)(i), (3)(b)(xix), and (3)(b)(xxix); and 6.50*+. That letter became the basis for the Termination II proceeding. The factual basis for pursuing the second termination proceeding was that Ms. Jones was working at Somerset without having applied for and received approval for a leave of absence from the School Board. The merits of the School Board’s allegations in this second proceeding are no longer relevant in terms of Ms. Jones’ employment with the School Board, as the School Board, through counsel, has represented that the School Board no longer intends to pursue the allegations in Termination II. The allegations are relevant and informative, however, in establishing the School Board’s interpretation of its rules and establishing Ms. Jones’ standing to challenge the validity of those rules. The evidence presented at hearing established that Ms. Jones has standing to bring this rule challenge. School Board rule 6.16 is entitled “Dual employment,” and provides as follows: No person may be employed to work in more than one position in the school system except upon the recommendation of the Superintendent and approval of the School Board. No employee shall accept other employment that might impair the independence of his or her judgment in the performance of his or her duties. Rule 6.16 lists as its statutory authority sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and lists sections 1001.43 and 1012.22 as the laws implemented. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. School Board Policy 6.50*+ is entitled “Leave of Absence,” and provides in pertinent part: Leave of absence. A leave of absence is permission granted by the School Board or allowed under its adopted policies for an employee to be absent from duty for a specified period of time with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave. Any absence of a member of the staff from duty shall be covered by leave duly authorized and granted. Leave shall be officially granted in advance and shall be used for the purposes set forth in the leave application. Leave for sickness or other emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. Length of Leave and Pay. Generally, no leave or combination of leaves, except military leave or Workers’ Compensation Leave, will be granted for a period in excess of one year. Illness-in-line-of- duty leave may not be extended beyond the maximum medical improvement date or a maximum of two (2) years from the date of injury, whichever is the earliest date. Leave may be with or without pay as provided by law, regulations of the State Board, and these rules. For any absence that is without pay, the deduction for each day of absence shall be determined by dividing the annual salary by the number of days/hours for the employment period. Employment leave. A leave shall not be granted to any employee to accept other employment unless the leave is to accept employment at a charter school as provided in paragraph (5) below. Accepting employment while on a leave of absence cancels the leave automatically. The person on leave will be notified that he or she must return to work with the School Board immediately, resign or be terminated. The Superintendent shall develop procedures to implement leave provisions. Charter School Leave. An employee may be granted leave to accept employment at a charter school in St. Lucie County in accordance with the following provisions: Teachers. Teachers may apply for leave to work at a charter school. The School Board will not require resignation of teachers desiring to work at a charter school. Teachers granted such leave by the School Board are not required to be on a continuing or professional services contract and shall not be subject to the seven (7) continuous years’ service requirement. Should a teacher on leave elect to return to work at the District, the teacher shall return to the teacher’s former position or a comparable position for which the teacher is qualified. * * * Method to Request Leave. An application to request leave to accept employment in a charter school shall be submitted using the procedures specified in Policy 6.501(1). For ten month instructional personnel, an application to request leave to accept employment at a charter school shall be submitted to the principal at least forty-five (45) days prior to the first day of work for the school year . . . . Insurance and Retirement Benefits. It shall be the sole responsibility of the charter school site to provide insurance and retirement benefits to charter school employees . . . . * * * Notice of Intent to Return. Employees on charter school leave shall give the School Board written notice of their intent to return at least sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of the semester they wish to return. Requirement for Annual Renewal. Charter school leave must be renewed annually. It is the sole responsibility of the employee on leave to submit an annual written letter notice of leave to the Superintendent or designee, and a copy of the annual written letter notice of leave to the employee’s school principal or immediate supervisor, as applicable, on or before April 1 of each year if they wish to renew their charter school leave for the following school year. Employees who do not submit the required annual leave form on or before April 1st will be considered to have voluntarily terminated their employment, and will no longer be eligible for any benefits or other consideration under this leave policy. (Emphasis supplied.) 11. Rule 6.50*+ lists sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33 as its statutory authority, and lists sections 1001.43, 1002.33(12)(e), 1012.22, 1012.61, 1012.63, and 1012.66 as the laws it implements. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. Rule 6.50*+ provides that if a teacher working for the School Board wishes to work at a charter school within St. Lucie County, that teacher must apply for permission to do so. However, the definition of a leave of absence in the first paragraph of rule 6.50*+ specifically provides that a leave of absence allowed under the rule is for a specified period of time “with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave.” By its terms, the rule does not appear to encompass those employees whose status is “suspended without pay,” given that those employees who are suspended without pay do not necessarily have the right to return to employment upon expiration of leave. Rule 6.50*+ also provides that an application for charter school leave shall be provided to the teacher’s principal at least 45 days before the beginning of the school year. For teachers on suspension without pay or who are not assigned to a particular school, there is no principal to whom the application can be given. The rule does not specify an alternative. Instead, Mr. Clements stated that it would be up to Ms. Jones (and presumably, anyone in her circumstance) to ask where to submit an application for charter school leave. The School Board interprets rule 6.50*+ as applying to all employees, regardless of their status. Rule 6.50*+ does not indicate what criteria would be used for determining if an employee’s application for leave should be granted. Mr. Clements testified that the decision is made on a case-by-case basis. He also testified that had Ms. Jones applied for charter school leave, he would not have recommended that her request be approved, because as a teacher on unpaid suspension, she is not in good standing with the School District. Nothing in rule 6.50*+ alerts Ms. Jones, or any other teacher in her circumstances, that her suspension without pay would be a basis for disapproval of an application for charter school leave. Nothing in the rule alerts any applicant of the criteria to be considered for the grant or denial of a requested leave of absence. The consideration of a staff member’s current disciplinary status is not an unreasonable consideration for the Superintendent or for the School District. It is not, however, included in the rule as a basis for deciding whether a request for charter school leave should be approved or denied.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North.
Findings Of Fact During the whole of the 1987-1988 and the beginning of the 1988-1989 school years, Respondent was a student at Carroll City Senior High School. As of fall, 1988, he was ranked as a 9th grader. Ms. Schipelberg was Respondent's mathematics teacher during the 1987- 1988 school year. In her class, he was outspoken, never brought required supplies to class, and did not work productively when Ms. Schipelberg provided supplies to him. Although Ms. Schipelberg spoke with his father, who promised better behavior on his son's part, better behavior was not forthcoming from Respondent, and on February 18, 1988, Ms. Schipelberg referred Respondent to the office for the same repeated behavior. On March 10, 1988, Respondent was referred by another teacher to Mr. William E. Henderson, a Carroll City High Assistant Principal, for cutting class and leaving school without permission. Three days indoor suspension was meted out as discipline. On May 17, 1988, Respondent was again referred for the administration of discipline by Mr. Henderson. This referral was the culmination of an incident in which Respondent entered a classroom without permission while a class was in progress; "visited" with a student who was properly assigned to that class; refused to leave when requested to do so by the teacher; prevented the teacher from closing the door to shut him out; and directed profanity at the teacher. A security monitor had to be called to eject Respondent from the room, and Mr. Henderson counselled with Respondent's parents and imposed three days outdoor suspension on Respondent. During the whole of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent initiated repeated incidents of disruptive behavior. He frequently moved around the school without a hall pass, contrary to school rules and the Code of Student Conduct. He repeatedly had excessive absences, cut classes, and left the school grounds without permission. During that period he was referred to the guidance counsellor, the visiting teacher, the occupational specialist, and the dropout program. He was placed on a "behavioral contract" requiring weekly progress reports through him to his parents but he failed to comply. By the end of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent's exit grades were seven failing classes (F's) and one "D," and he had accumulated 89 absences out of 180 days of school. On September 8, 1988, approximately one month into the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was referred to Mr. Arthur Lindsey, also an Assistant Principal of Carroll City High School. This referral was for counselling due to Respondent's verbal abuse of a substitute teacher. Mr. Lindsey advised Respondent that his behavior was in direct defiance of the Student Code, which it was. Later that same day, Mr. Lindsey was summoned by walkie talkie due to Respondent's presence in the hall without a hall pass, refusal to go back to class, defiance of a school security officer, and loud use of sexually explicit obscenities. Respondent's father was notified, and Respondent was suspended for 10 days. After review by a child study team on September 12, 1988, Mr. Lindsey formally recommended that Respondent be transferred to the alternative education program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North, an "opportunity school" established by the Dade County School Board. The child study team concluded that this was the appropriate placement for Respondent since all of Respondent's infractions and suspensions fell in the Group 5 range of the Student Code. Group 5 offenses rate suspension, expulsion, or transfer to alternative education. The transfer was deemed the least harsh alternative. At formal hearing, Mr. Henderson stated that he concurred in Mr. Lindsey's recommendation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Robert Ward to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 6th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Fernandez, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building--Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. and Mrs. Derek Nesbitt 3130 Northwest 174th Street Miami, Florida 33056 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended, without pay, and terminated from all employment with Petitioner for the offenses set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Hankerson was an instructional employee with the School Board. Ms. Hankerson has been a teacher with the School Board for 11 years, beginning as a teacher with the School Board in 2000. She was first assigned to Renick Education Center. Subsequently, Ms. Hankerson was transferred to Barbara Goleman High School (Goleman) in Miami Lakes, Florida. During the 2009-2010 school year, she taught science to exceptional student education (ESE) students at Goleman. At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Hankerson was advised that her department was being eliminated and that she needed to find another school at which to work if she desired to continue her employment with the School Board. She sought other schools and received an email from Howard McMillan Middle School (McMillan) to come for an interview. She accepted a teaching position at McMillan, effective September 20, 2010. While working at Goleman in Miami Lakes, Florida, Ms. Hankerson resided in Miami Shores, Florida. Her residence was in close proximity to Goleman. She had three children and was able to get her children to school and report to Goleman in a timely manner throughout her tenure at Goleman. Ms. Hankerson's travel time to McMillan was significantly greater than to Goleman due to McMillan being located further south than Goleman.2 During the 2010-2011 school year, all teachers at McMillan were required to report to work at 8:30 a.m. Professional meetings, which consisted of team meetings and department meetings, were held from 8:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. Team meetings were held three days a week. Department meetings were held two days a week, where teachers meet by department to discuss curricular activities and requirements. Faculty meetings were held every other Tuesdays, and, when faculty meetings occurred, no professional meetings were held because the faculty meetings replaced the professional meetings. At 9:00 a.m., teachers went to their respective classroom to meet their students, who began arriving at 9:00 a.m. Instruction began at 9:10 a.m., with homeroom followed by advisement, where the Comprehensive Research Reading Plan was implemented, and ended at 9:46 a.m. First period began at 9:56 a.m. School ended at 3:50 p.m. Ms. Hankerson was assigned a homeroom class. The students in her classroom consisted of eighth grade students, who were not performing at grade level in reading and were FCAT Level 1 students in reading. Ms. Hankerson's first period (Period 1) was a seventh grade civics class. Her students consisted of ESE students, with varying exceptionalities. She was the sole teacher. Ms. Hankerson was a co-teacher for four periods of the remaining school day, teaching science. The students for the four periods consisted of general education students and ESE students. Ms. Hankerson was the ESE teacher, and the other teacher was the general education teacher, who generally took the lead in the classroom. The second period (Period 2) was a seventh grade science class; the third period (Period 3) was an eighth grade science class; the fourth period (Period 4) was a sixth grade science class; and the sixth period (Period 6) was a seventh grade science class. Her fifth period (Period 5) was a planning period. No dispute exists that Ms. Hankerson's employment with the School Board is subject to, among other things, a professional service contract, a collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD), and policies and procedures of the School Board. School Board Policy and the Agreement provide teachers with one sick day of leave every month. At the beginning of each school year, each teacher is given, up front, four days of sick leave that the teacher can use. However, the accrual of sick leave is one sick leave day per month for the ten-month period that a teacher is employed with the School Board, totaling ten sick days of leave. During the ten-month period, if a teacher takes leave exceeding the ten days and does not have leave that is "banked," which is leave that is carried over from one school year to the next, it results in leave without pay, unauthorized. In a medical situation, if a teacher knows that he or she will be absent for an extended period of time, the teacher would apply for leave. If the absence will be over 30 days, the teacher would apply for medical leave and can use leave that is banked. However, if no leave is banked, it results in leave without pay, unauthorized. If a teacher is going to be absent from work, the teacher is required to call into a dedicated-absence telephone line at least one hour before the start of the workday. On the day that the teacher is absent, the teacher is also required to call his or her school 30 minutes prior to the scheduled student dismissal time, indicating whether he or she will report to work on the next workday in order for the school to make arrangements for a substitute teacher. A teacher, who is absent without prior approval, is deemed to have been willfully absent without leave, except in a situation of sudden illness or an emergency situation. Immediately upon beginning at McMillan, Ms. Hankerson began arriving late and using her sick days. Eight days after beginning at McMillan, on September 28, 2010, she took a sick leave day; on October 1, 2010, she took one day of leave without pay, unauthorized; and on October 13 and 19, 2010, she took one sick leave day and one-half sick leave day, respectively. On October 21, 2010, while she was at McMillan, allegations, unrelated to the instant case, involving inappropriate conduct and remarks were made against Ms. Hankerson. Effective October 22, 2010, she was removed from McMillan and placed at the School Board's Region office, pending an investigation. A substitute teacher was hired to take over Ms. Hankerson's classes. The allegations were referred for investigation to the School Board's Civilian Investigative Unit. Ms. Hankerson was assigned to the Region office from October 22, 2010, through February 22, 2011. While at the Region office, Ms. Hankerson continued her pattern of absences. Between October 22, 2010, and February 22, 2011, she accumulated an additional 18 days of absences: five and one-half days of leave without pay, unauthorized; seven days of leave without pay, authorized; and five and one-half days of sick leave. The investigation into the allegations was concluded. At a Conference-For-The-Record (CFR) held by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) on November 29, 2010, memorialized in a Summary of CFR dated December 3, 2010, Ms. Handerson was advised that probable cause existed for violations of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics. At the CFR, the OPS provided her with a copy of the School Board rules; The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida; and a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching." Additionally, the OPS issued her directives, including adhere to all the School Board's rules and regulations; and comport, both at the workplace and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon herself and the School Board. By letter dated February 10, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was notified that the School Board had taken action, at its meeting on February 9, 2011, to suspend her without pay for five workdays from February 10, 2011, through February 16, 2011. Further, the letter notified her to report to work at McMillan on February 17, 2011. However, Ms. Hankerson did not serve the suspension from February 10, 2011, through February 16, 2011. The suspension was rescheduled to February 22 through 28, 2011, with her return to McMillan on March 1, 2011. Having served her suspension on February 22 through 28, 2011, Ms. Hankerson failed to return to McMillan on March 1, 2011. Moreover, she failed to call the dedicated absence telephone line at McMillan, the Absence Reporting System (ARS), one hour prior to the workday on March 1, 2011, to state that she would not report to work that day; and failed to call 30 minutes before the scheduled student dismissal on March 1, 2011, to state whether she would report to work on March 2, 2011. On March 2, 2011, Ms. Hankerson reported to McMillan for work and, also, reported ten minutes late, at 8:40 a.m. That same morning, McMillan's principal, Hilca Thomas, met with Ms. Hankerson and advised her that she (Ms. Hankerson) was required to report to work on March 1, 2011, not March 2, 2011; and that March 1, 2011, would be reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Ms. Hankerson blamed the arrival on March 2, 2011, instead of March 1, 2011, on a miscommunication between her and the UTD representative. Further, Ms. Thomas reminded Ms. Hankerson of the hours of work and the attendance procedures, including communicating absences using the ARS. Ms. Hankerson stated that she would "not make it in at 8:30"; that she would "be late almost every morning because of [her] children and [she] live[s] far [away]"; and that being late was "unavoidable." Additionally, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that her (Ms. Hankerson's) undergarment was exposed and that she was not wearing appropriate attire. Ms. Hankerson abruptly left Ms. Thomas' office stating that she was going to UTD's office downtown. Shortly thereafter, around 9:15 a.m., Ms. Henderson returned to Ms. Thomas' office, but a substitute teacher was already deployed to Ms. Hankerson's classroom. As a result, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that she (Ms. Hankerson) could leave for the day and directed Ms. Hankerson to report back to McMillan for work on March 3, 2011. The events on March 2, 2011, were memorialized in a memorandum from Ms. Thomas to Ms. Hankerson on that same date. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receiving a copy of the memorandum. The evidence demonstrates that the directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas to report to work at 8:30 a.m. and to follow the procedures for absences were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. Ms. Hankerson failed to report to work at McMillan on March 3, 2011. Also, she failed to report to work on March 4, 2011. Both days were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Ms. Hankerson reported to work at McMillan on March 7, 2011, the next school day, at which time she was issued an Absence from Worksite Directive by Ms. Thomas. The Absence from Worksite Directive advised Ms. Hankerson, among other things, that attendance and punctuality were essential functions of her job and that, since September 20, 2010, she had accumulated 25.5 absences.3 The absences were reflected as four absences within her first month at McMillan (September 20 through October 22, 2010); 17.5 absences when she was assigned to the Region office during the investigation; and four absences when she was to report back to McMillan between March 1 and 4, 2011. Additionally, the Absence from Worksite Directive instructed Ms. Hankerson on the proper procedures to obtain authorized leave of absence. She had failed to avail herself of the proper procedures to obtain authorized leave of absence. Further, the Absence from Worksite Directive advised Ms. Hankerson that her noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. On March 7, 2011, Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receiving the Absence from Worksite Directive by signing the document. The evidence demonstrates that the directives issued to Ms. Hankerson by Ms. Thomas in the Absence from Worksite Directive were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to issue the directives. Ms. Hankerson failed to abide by and comply with the directives. On March 10, 2011, three days after receiving the Absence from Worksite Directive, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan late, 9:50 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on the same day of the tardiness and reminded her (Ms. Hankerson) of the directives. Additionally, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that she (Ms. Hankerson) was inappropriately dressed. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 11, 2011, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan late, 8:50 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on the same day of the tardiness and advised her (Ms. Hankerson) that, because she (Ms. Hankerson) had failed to call-in to the ARS, a substitute had been hired for the day. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Hankerson failed to report to McMillan. Additionally, she failed to call-in to the ARS to state whether she would be reporting to work on March 22, 2011, and, as a result, Ms. Thomas hired a substitute for March 22, 2011. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on March 22, 2011, and reviewed the absence with her (Ms. Hankerson); reported Ms. Hankerson's absence as unauthorized; and advised Ms. Hankerson that a substitute was hired for the day. Ms. Thompson reported each absence as one-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 29, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan approximately an hour early, at 2:45 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Also, she failed to attend her class at Period 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. The next day, March 30, 2011, Ms. Hankerson did not report to McMillan. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. The following day, March 31, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan approximately 30 minutes early, at 3:20 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Additionally, she failed to attend her class at Period 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. The next day, April 1, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan at 12:30 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Also, she failed to attend her classes at Periods 4 and 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On April 4, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan at 10:47 a.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. The following day, April 5, 2011, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan a little over one-half hour late, at 9:03 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson, regarding the attendance, and informed her (Ms. Hankerson's) that the early departures from McMillan would be reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Thomas provided Ms. Hankerson with notification of a CFR to be held on April 8, 2011. The next day, April 6, 2011, Ms. Hankerson did not report to McMillan. Additionally, she failed to call-in to the ARS to state whether she would be reporting to work on April 7, 2011, and, as a result, Ms. Thomas hired a substitute for April 7, 2011. The CFR on April 8, 2011, was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. Even though Ms. Hankerson had reported to McMillan for the workday, she did not appear at the CFR at the scheduled time. When an "all call" was made over the public address system for her at 3:20 p.m., Ms. Hankerson responded and was informed that should report to the CFR. However, she did not arrive at the CFR until 3:49 p.m. and informed Ms. Thomas, among other things, that the CFR should proceed without her (Ms. Hankerson) because her (Ms. Hankerson's) children were home alone and she (Ms. Hankerson) was leaving at 3:50 p.m., the end of the workday. Ms. Hankerson left, and the CFR proceeded without her. The attendees at the CFR included Ms. Thomas; the assistant principal; and the UTD Representative. The purpose of the CFR was to address Ms. Hankerson's insubordination regarding previously issued attendance directives, and her noncompliance to School Board rules 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, 6Gx13- 4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and to review her record and future employment status with the School Board. A Summary of the CFR was prepared by Ms. Thomas on April 18, 2011. The Summary for the CFR included a delineation of Ms. Hankerson's absences, reflecting that, since the issuance of the Absence of Worksite Directive on March 7, 2011, through April 15, 2011, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated one-half day absence of leave without pay, authorized; 10.5 days absence of leave without pay, unauthorized; one temporary duty day; and one personal day.4 Furthermore, the Summary for the CFR reflected that, as of April 15, 2011, for the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated a total of 46 absences.5 The Summary for the CFR contained directives to Ms. Hankerson. The directives included: adherence to School Board rules 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; to report to work and depart from work daily at the scheduled hours; be in regular attendance at the worksite and on time; adhere to attendance directives previously issued; communicate any intent to be absent directly to the principal and by calling the ARS; the reporting of future absences will be leave without pay, unauthorized, unless documentation showing qualification under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave of absence is provided; and for imminent absences, leave must be requested and procedures for School Board approved leave implemented, and the FMLA or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, if applicable, must be complied with. Ms. Hankerson was advised that failure to comply with the directives would lead to further review for disciplinary action and would be considered gross insubordination. Further, the Summary for the CFR advised Ms. Hankerson that she would be issued a letter of reprimand. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receipt of the Summary for the CFR on April 18, 2011, by signing the Summary for the CFR. The evidence demonstrates that the directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas at the CFR and the Summary for the CFR were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. On April 18, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Reprimand. The Reprimand was based on Ms. Hankerson's failure to comply with the previous directive issued to Ms. Hankerson regarding attendance and professional responsibilities. Additionally, the Reprimand advised Ms. Hankerson that any recurrence of the noncompliance might lead to disciplinary action and would be considered gross insubordination. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receipt of the Reprimand on April 18, 2011, by signing the Reprimand. Ms. Hankerson failed to comply with the directives issued in the Summary for the CFR. On the same day of the Reprimand, April 18, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was absent one-half day, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Two days thereafter, she was absent for three consecutive days, April 20 through 22, 2011, each day being reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Having worked the next school day, April 25, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was absent one-half day on April 26, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized; absent one-half day on April 27, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized; and absent one day on April 28, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Additionally, she was tardy for work on April 27, 2011. From April 18 through 28, 2011, she had a total of five and one-half absences. Due to these recent absences and tardiness, on April 28, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum. The absences and tardiness were listed in the memorandum, and Ms. Hankerson was advised that the absences were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Hankerson was advised that she had continued to be absent, tardy, and insubordinate; that her continued failure to comply with the reissued directives resulted in gross insubordination; and that, therefore, the memorandum would be forwarded to OPS for gross insubordination and further disciplinary action. She acknowledged receipt of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re- Issued Directives memorandum on April 18, 2011, by signing it. The evidence demonstrates that the re-issued directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. Ms. Hankerson's absences, tardiness, and early departures continued. On May 2 through 4, 2011, she was absent one day each date; May 5, 6, and 13, 2011, she was absent one- half day each date; and May 16, 2011, she was absent one day; totaling five and one-half days of absences, which were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Also, Ms. Hankerson was tardy seven times, on May 5, 6, 10 through 13, and 17, 2011, which were unauthorized. Additionally, she departed McMillan early two times, on May 6 and 13, 2011, which were unauthorized. Due to these recent absences, tardiness, and early departures, on May 17, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum. The absences, tardiness, and early departures were listed in the memorandum, and Ms. Hankerson was advised that the absences were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Hankerson was advised that she had continued to be insubordinate; that her continued failure to comply with the reissued directives resulted in gross insubordination; and that, therefore, the memorandum would be forwarded to OPS for gross insubordination and further disciplinary action. She acknowledged receipt of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re- Issued Directives memorandum on May 17, 2011, by signing it. The evidence demonstrates that the second re-issued directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. At the time of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum on May 17, 2011, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated 57 absences. Additionally, she had multiple instances of tardiness and early departures. A CFR was held by OPS. Persons in attendance included the Director of OPS; Ms. Thomas; and Ms. Hankerson and her UTD Representative. At the CFR, Ms. Hankerson was provided an opportunity to respond. OPS recommended termination of Ms. Hankerson's employment for gross insubordination and violation of School Board's rules concerning Responsibilities and Duties, Code of Ethics, and Absences and Leaves. After the CFR at OPS, Ms. Hankerson reported for work at McMillan only on June 7, 2011, and June 9, 2011, which was the last day of the 2010-2011 school year. On June 9, 2011, she arrived late, signed-in, and left McMillan shortly thereafter, not remaining at work the entire time set-aside for the last day. From the time that she began at McMillan until the time of the recommendation by OPS, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated 57 absences during the 2010-2011 school year. Of the 57 absences, 18.5 absences occurred during the time that she was assigned to the Region office, not in the classroom. Ms. Hankerson's absences and tardiness negatively impacted the role of Ms. Thomas as the principal and leader of McMillan. Often times, due to Ms. Hankerson's tardiness, Ms. Thomas had no choice but to take over Ms. Hankerson's homeroom class; and when she (Ms. Thomas) was unable to do so, she (Ms. Thomas) had to find another teacher to cover the homeroom class until Ms. Hankerson arrived. Additionally, when Ms. Thomas had no notice that Ms. Hankerson would be absent, Ms. Thomas had no choice but to take over Ms. Hankerson's homeroom class until a substitute, who had to contacted at the last minute because of no prior notice, arrived; and when she (Ms. Thomas) was unable to do so, she (Ms. Thomas) had to find another teacher to cover the homeroom class until the substitute arrived. As a result of the recommendation of OPS, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board the suspension, without pay, and termination of the employment of Ms. Hankerson. At its regularly scheduled meeting held on June 15, 2011, the School Board took action to suspend, without pay, Ms. Hankerson and initiate dismissal proceedings against her from all employment for just cause, including, but not limited to: misconduct in office; gross insubordination; attendance-to-date; and violation of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. Ms. Hankerson does not refute the absences, the tardiness, or the early departures. For the instances of tardiness, Ms. Hankerson testified at hearing that she would call-in before 8:30 a.m. and state that she was en-route and would be late. The School Board did not refute her assertion. Despite her calling-in, Ms. Hankerson admitted that Ms. Thomas did not tolerate her (Ms. Hankerson's) tardiness and took the action previously mentioned. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. On March 2, 2011, Ms. Hankerson informed Ms. Thomas that arriving late for work at McMillan was unavoidable because she (Ms. Hankerson) took her (Ms. Hankerson's) children to school and she (Ms. Hankerson) lived so far away from McMillan. Additionally, around April 2011, Ms. Hankerson informed Ms. Thomas that she (Ms. Hankerson) was going through a divorce. At hearing, Ms. Hankerson testified that, during March, April, May, and June 2011, she was having marital problems and living sometimes at home and sometimes with her mother in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which was approximately 28 miles from McMillan. Ms. Hankerson took her children to school, but, when she lived with her mother, she would not leave them at their school in the mornings alone if it was dark. She testified further that she was being investigated by the Department of Children and Families regarding allegations of neglect and being an unfit mother. Additionally, she testified that she was having financial problems. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. However, she did not provide these details to Ms. Thomas. Further, Ms. Hankerson testified that, for April, May, and June 2011, she considered taking leave using the FMLA and contacted her UTD Representative. Ms. Hankerson decided not to take leave using the FMLA. The UTD Representative did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. Again, Ms. Hankerson did not provide this detail to Ms. Thomas. Ms. Hankerson testified that the circumstances that she indicated caused her absences, tardiness, and early departures have been resolved. Her testimony is found to be credible. Before working at McMillan on September 20, 2010, Ms. Hankerson had no prior disciplinary action taken against her by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Lavonda Hankerson, without pay, for the 2011-2012 school term and under other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following bindings of fact: The Respondent, Consuelo DeArmendi, holds a Rank I Florida teaching certificate #399385, expiring June 30, 1987, authorizing her to teach foreign languages in secondary education. The Respondent has been employed as a foreign language teacher by the Dade County school system for approximately eight (8) years beginning in 1978. Respondent was initially employed at Miami Palmetto Senior High School for the 1978-79 school and taught at Highland Oaks Junior High School for the 1979-80 school year. Beginning with the 1980-81 school year, Respondent taught Spanish and French at Miami Carol City Senior High School where she remained until her suspension on June 4, 1986. 1980-81 SCHOOL YEAR During the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent was late or absent from Miami Carol City Senior High School on many instances and failed to call the school office as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook. According to the handbook, which is provided to all teachers, a teacher is required to notify the school prior to leaving if the teacher is aware that he or she will be absent the following day. A teacher may also call a designated member of the clerical staff between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. if they intend to be absent the following day but were unaware of the intended absence prior to leaving school. Finally, the teacher is allowed to report an unexpected absence to the school on the morning of the absence between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. Advance notice of an absence allows the school to secure substitute teacher coverage for the class. For the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was observed and evaluated by her principal and rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics because of repeated absences and tardiness. On February 10, 1981, the principal placed the Respondent on extended annual contract for failure to improve her attendance at work and failure to comply with school policy regarding teacher absences. 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 11, 1981 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 1, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 18, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent by Ms. Wally Lyshkov, the school district foreign language supervisor, conducted on April 15, 1982, resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques and Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships. Ms. Lyshkov's observation of Respondent's teaching techniques and materials revealed that Respondent had a multi- level class (Spanish II and III combined), but only used one set of lesson plans. The lesson plans did not include the variety of activities that are usually and normally found in a multi-level class. The students tended to ignore any directions that Respondent gave and there was little, if any, exchange with the students. There was almost no activity or active participation on the part of the students, and Respondent was generally unaware of what the students were doing. During the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent received assistance and recommendations from Ms. Lyshkov on handling multi-level classes and assistance in establishing various student-directed and teacher-directed activities. In Ms. Lyshkov's opinion, the Respondent did not demonstrate an ability to deliver quality education or instruction because of her ineffectiveness in transmitting her knowledge to the students. During the 1981-82 school year, the principal became concerned with Respondent's excessive number of absences and her failure to comply with the school's procedures for calling in and reporting absences. In addition, the principal had received several complaints from students and parents concerning Respondent's excessive absences. On March 8, 1982, the principal gave her a notice of not complying with procedures and requested a formal conference to discuss Respondent's excessive absenteeism and student complaints. On June 3, 1982, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by the principal and received an overall rating of acceptable. However, Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category VIII - Professional Responsibility, because of her consistent failure to follow guidelines in reporting her absences and her excessive number of absences which negatively impacted on the continuity of instruction provided to her students. In the Respondent's Annual Evaluation Report for the 1981-82 school year, the principal recommended that Respondent not be re-employed. The Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics (teacher contribution to total school program). Despite the principal's recommendation, Respondent was re-hired because she had already achieved continuing contract status. 1982-83 SCHOOL YEAR On January 26, 1983, the principal conducted a conference-for-the- record with Respondent. The conference was held because of Respondent's attendance record, lack of planning and failure to comply with instructions governing the reporting of absences. On several occasions, the Respondent failed to timely notify the school about her intention to be absent which resulted in difficulties obtaining a substitute teacher and often required another teacher to cover the Respondent's classes as well as his/her own class. In addition, teachers are required to have emergency lesson plans on file for use by substitute teachers when the primary teacher is absent. The Respondent did not have any emergency lesson plans on file. Respondent had been absent from her teaching assignment twenty-seven (27) days since the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. During the January 26, 1983 conference, Respondent informed the principal that she was taking medication (lithium) because of a manic-depressive disorder and that her most recent string of absences were due to a failure to take a proper dosage of the medication. The principal reminded Respondent of her responsibility to properly notify the school when she was going to be absent or tardy and referred her to the Employee Assistance Program. 1983-84 SCHOOL YEAR During October 1983, the Respondent was warned by the assistant principal on several occasions about her failure to properly inform the school regarding her absences. She was referred to the Faculty Handbook to review teacher's absences. Further, she was asked to prepare at least one week of emergency lesson plans to be used in her absence. Respondent did not prepare the emergency lesson plans as required. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 22, 1983 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning because she did not have adequate lesson plans for the subjects being taught. The lesson plans were not suitable for Respondent's mixed-level class because there was no distinction between student activities. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category IV - Techniques of Instruction because there was no distinction in instruction provided to the different levels and groups of students. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category V - Assessment Techniques because she did not follow school policy concerning grades which required at least one grade per week. There were only two or three grades on the roll book per student (this was the ninth week of school) and there was no rationale for the grades. Respondent did not maintain any records of student achievement other than what was on the roll book. Respondent was found "unacceptable" in Category VII - Professional Responsibility and Category VIII - Supportive Characteristics because of her excessive absences and her failure to follow proper procedure in reporting absences. The Respondent's excessive absences led to problems with continuity in student instruction as well as parental and student complaints. As a result of the observation on November 22, 1983, Respondent was given a prescription of planned activity which was designed to help her improve in these areas that had been rated unacceptable. On December 2, 1983, the Respondent was again warned by the assistant principal about reporting absences in a timely fashion. As was the case in most instances, the Respondent was absent and had failed to notify the school in a timely manner. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on January 19, 1984 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall rating of "unacceptable". In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VII - Professional Responsibility; and Category VII - Supportive Characteristics. For the 1983-84 school year, the principal rated Respondent as acceptable and recommended her for employment primarily because he had noted a sharp turnaround in Respondent's performance in the second half of the school year, starting in February, 1984. The principal knew that Respondent had been hospitalized in December 1983, and believed that as long as she was receiving medical attention and taking medication, she would be capable of performing in the classroom. 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR At the conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, the principal rated the Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment. 1985-86 SCHOOL YEAR On October 4, 1985, the principal held a conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her continued excessive absenteeism, failure to timely notify the school regarding her absences and numerous parent and student complaints regarding the instruction in Respondent's classroom. On October 4, 1985, the school year had been in session for students for twenty-two (22) days. The Respondent had been absent 10 days and had only completed one full week of school without an absence. At a conference on October 4, 1985 with the principal, Respondent indicated that she was under medication and that the problems she was experiencing would be corrected. On October 17, 1985, the assistant principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was rated overall as "acceptable", but was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management because of an apparent lack of control over the students in her classroom. When the assistant principal entered the classroom, the teacher was sitting at the desk and seemed to have little or no control over the students. Only four (4) or five (5) students were participating in the class discussion and the balance of the 25-30 students in the classroom were combing their hair, talking, eating or doing whatever they chose to do. When Respondent noted the presence of the assistant principal, she began to shout loudly at the class in an unsuccessful attempt to gain control. After the October 17 observation, the assistant principal gave Respondent a prescription for classroom management which required her to plan instructional activity to cover the entire hour of the class, establish a seating chart, separate talking students, plan activities with other Spanish teachers for instruction, work with the guidance counselor and make parental contacts with students who were disruptive in class. Respondent did not comply with or perform the planned activities set forth in the prescription. On November 6, 1985, the principal directed Respondent to provide a doctor's statement whenever she was absent because of illness. Respondent was absent after the directive and did not comply with it or provide an explanation for her absence. Between November, 1985 and early February, 1986, the Respondent took leave. She returned to work on February 14, 1986 and shortly thereafter continued her pattern of absences. In early March, 1986 the principal scheduled a conference for the record with Respondent for March 5, 1986 to discuss several student and parent complaints which the school had received. The Respondent was absent and did not attend the conference scheduled for March 5. Although the Respondent called the school to report an intended one day absence, the school did not hear anything from Respondent nor anything of her again until March 14, 1986. On March 14 a corrections officer contacted the school and stated that the Respondent was in the Women's Detention Center on a charge of battery and was being held pending a psychiatric examination at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Respondent was absent from her school assignment from March 5 until May 7, 1986. This absence negatively affected instructional continuity and the quality of education provided to the students in Respondent's classes. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent from her work assignment for at least eighty (80) days. At the conclusion of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was evaluated by her principal as "unacceptable" and was not recommended for employment. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management and professional responsibility. Throughout her period of employment, Respondent has undergone psychiatric medical treatment from at least five different physicians: Dr. Martinez, Dr. Garcia-Granda, Dr. Diaz, Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Vilasusa. Respondent has been diagnosed as a manic-depressive, characterized by periods of deep depression and/or extreme elation. It was uncontroverted that Respondent has an excellent command of her academic specialities--Spanish and French.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing Respondent from employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2274 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59 (2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(5)(d), and 6B-1.006(5)(e); and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 544113 that covers the areas of educational leadership, business education, teacher coordinator of cooperative education, and vocational office education. At all times relevant to this proceeding, and since about 1983, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School Board. During most of her tenure with the Hillsborough County School Board, Respondent has worked as a classroom teacher. Respondent's employment with the School Board was terminated on October 13, 2004. 2001 Fall Semester In the 2001 fall semester, Respondent was a teacher in the business department at Jefferson High School ("Jefferson"). At all times relevant hereto, Virginia McGinn, was also a teacher in the business department at Jefferson. As a professional colleague, Ms. McGinn communicated and had contact with Respondent during the workday. During the 2001 fall semester, Respondent was teaching her second-period class in the classroom that was right across from the teaching planning area. Ms. McGinn had a planning period during that time and was walking toward the teacher planning area, when she heard a lot of yelling coming from Respondent's classroom. Observing that the door to Respondent's classroom was open, Ms. McGinn stood in the doorway for a minute and looked in the classroom to see what was going on and to make sure everything was okay. While standing in the doorway, Ms. McGinn observed and heard Respondent yelling and noticed that Respondent seemed and sounded very agitated. After Ms. McGinn determined that everything was all right, she left the doorway of Respondent's classroom and went to the teaching planning area. When Ms. McGinn arrived at the teaching planning area, one other teacher was there, Ms. Zale. A few minutes later and after her class was over, Respondent came to the teacher planning area "in a huff" and immediately took off her blouse. Respondent was wearing a camisole underneath the blouse. According to Respondent she took off her blouse that day because she was extremely hot. Respondent then began "ranting and raving" about what had just occurred in her classroom and seemed to be very agitated and angry. Ms. McGinn and Ms. Zale asked Respondent what had happened in her classroom. Respondent explained that she had been correcting a student, and when she told him something, the student started sucking his teeth. Respondent then stated that when the student started sucking his teeth, she "just went off." As Respondent was recounting what had happened in her classroom (the student sucking his teeth), she still appeared to be very agitated. Ms. McGinn and Ms. Zale tried talking to Respondent in order to get her to calm down. Eventually, Respondent "did calm down some." However, Ms. McGinn described Respondent's behavior during the episode and prior to her calming down, as "abnormal" and "overly agitated." The camisole that was revealed when Respondent took off her blouse was a sleeveless undergarment with thin straps. However, the camisole was not lacy or made of transparent fabric and did not reveal any inappropriate parts of Respondent's body. In fact, the camisole looked similar to some shirts that are worn as outer garments. Nonetheless, that type of undergarment was not typically the kind of top that would be worn as a blouse or other outer garment by a teacher in a school. The teaching planning area is an area used primarily by teachers. According to Respondent, she took off her blouse that day because she was extremely hot. At that time, there were only two female teachers in the teaching planning area. However, there are times when male teachers are in the teaching planning area and times when students and visitors are in the area. Accordingly, the teaching planning area was not an appropriate area for Respondent to remove her blouse even though she was wearing a camisole underneath the blouse. September 20, 2001 Incident In September 2001, in addition to her responsibilities as a business education teacher at Jefferson, Respondent was assigned a senior homeroom class. The classroom in which Respondent's homeroom class met was used by Respondent only for the homeroom period. The homeroom period was immediately after the first period and, generally, was about five or ten minutes. However, on certain days, the school's rotating schedule allowed for a 30-minute homeroom period during which students attended "club" meetings or remained in homeroom for study hall or a silent reading period. On September 19, 2001, Respondent rearranged the student desks in the classroom where her homeroom class met to address disciplinary issues with some of her homeroom students. Prior to making this change, Respondent conferred with Gwendolyn Henderson, then chairperson of the business department, who thought the change would be fine. On September 20, 2001, Respondent arrived for the homeroom period in the assigned classroom. Most of Respondent's homeroom students were already in the classroom and in their seats when Respondent arrived. Upon entering the classroom, Respondent discovered that the student desks/tables were not arranged as she had placed them the previous day. After looking around the classroom for about a minute, Respondent yelled out, "Which one of [you] changed my tables around? This is my class. Everyone move to the back of the room now." Respondent then began pushing one of the tables around and, while doing so, the table hit a student's hand as that student was trying to move out of the way. After the table hit the student's hand, Respondent yelled out, "[You] better move out of my way." Respondent then quickly pushed another table, and as she was doing so, that table hit another student's knee. As Respondent was moving the tables, she kept repeating, "This is my room. This is my room. No one [should] touch anything in my room." Respondent again asked the students, "Who moved my tables around?" She stated, "This is not the way I put them [tables/student desks]." Finally, Respondent asked if someone in the first-period class, the class immediately before the homeroom period, moved the tables. A student in Respondent's homeroom, who was also in the first-period class, told Respondent that the tables "were like this in the first period class." By this time, all the students had moved to the back of the room as they had been instructed to do. Respondent then ran out of the classroom. After Respondent left the classroom, her homeroom students worked together and placed the tables in the "formation" Respondent had them the previous day. At some point during the incident, two students in Respondent's homeroom left the classroom, went to Gwendolyn Henderson's office and told her what had happened in their homeroom. Based on Ms. Henderson's observation, the two students were upset when they came to her office to report the incident. While the two students were in her office, Ms. Henderson heard Respondent come into the area and go to the teacher planning area. Ms. Henderson left her office and went to the teaching planning area to talk to Respondent. When Ms. Henderson entered the teaching planning area, Respondent asked her who had moved the furniture in the classroom. Ms. Henderson did not know who had moved the furniture and could not answer Respondent's question. However, it was apparent to her that Respondent was very upset about the furniture being moved. Henderson attempted to calm Respondent by repeatedly telling her to "calm down, [and] breathe." At some point, Respondent picked up the telephone, called the school office, and demanded that the school principal immediately come to the teacher planning area. In response to Respondent's call, Mr. Cugno, assistant principal at Jefferson, came to the teacher planning area. By the time Mr. Cugno arrived, Respondent, though still upset, was beginning to calm down. When Mr. Cugno entered the teacher planning area, Ms. Henderson was standing near Respondent, holding Respondent's arm and telling her to breathe. Mr. Cugno then approached Respondent and told her to calm down. It is unclear how close Mr. Cugno was to her, but according to Respondent, he was "right up in [her] face" and telling her to calm down.4 Respondent's perception was that Mr. Cugno had yelled at her and, as a result, she became upset and told him, "I will not calm down." At that point, Mr. Cugno used his radio to call for the school's resource officer for assistance. After he completed that call, Respondent asked, "Mr. Cugno, how dare you?" Ms. Henderson was "shocked" that Mr. Cugno had called the "police" (school resource officer) in this situation. For her part, Ms. Henderson had no concerns that anyone's safety was in jeopardy, and she was not "in fear," notwithstanding Respondent's behavior that day. Prior to the school resource officer's arriving, Respondent told Ms. Henderson and Mr. Cugno that she was going for a walk and left the teacher planning area. At some point after Respondent left the teacher planning area, Daniel Rivero, principal at Jefferson, found Respondent sitting on a bench outside the main office. Mr. Rivero, who was aware of the situation that had transpired that day, asked Respondent if she would come into his office, but she refused to do so. He then asked Respondent for the second time if she would come into his office. Respondent again refused to go into Mr. Rivera's office; instead, she just sat on the bench outside the office. Unsure of what to do in this situation, Mr. Rivera contacted Linda Kipley, the general manager for Professional Standards of the Hillsborough County School District ("School District"), for guidance. Referral to Employee Assistance Program On October 2, 2001, Respondent was directed by the School District to participate in the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"). The School District officials required this mandatory referral due to concerns about whether Respondent should be in the classroom with children. After being referred to the School District's EPA, Respondent participated willingly in the program. Once the School District makes a mandatory referral, Ms. Kipley's office receives information from the provider pertaining to the employee's progress and compliance with the referral, as well as the employee's readiness to return to work. On or about October 12, 2001, after meeting with Respondent, Judy Kuntz, Petitioner's EAP provider, telephoned Ms. Kipley and provided the following general information: (a) Respondent was very cooperative; (b) Respondent wanted to make changes; and (c) the provider and Respondent had discussed some things that had gone on in Respondent's past. The provider also advised Ms. Kipley that Respondent would need to continue with counseling on a regular basis and needed to be out of the classroom "a week or more." Finally, the provider indicated that she would contact Ms. Kipley later in October to "officially" release Respondent from mandatory referral. On October 29, 2001, Ms. Kuntz, called to update Ms. Kipley on Respondent's progress. According to Mr. Kipley's notes, Ms. Kuntz reported that she had diagnosed Respondent with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and that Respondent "understands where her anger is coming from and realizes that she needs to redirect it in another way [and] cannot take it out on others." Ms. Kipley's notes also reflect that the provider recommended six to 12 months of additional counseling, reported that Respondent is very agreeable to counseling, and advised that Respondent was not ready to return to the classroom. Finally, according to Ms. Kipley's notes, the provider reported that she "perceives [Respondent] as extremely intelligent and willing to improve." As a result of the October 29, 2001, report from the EAP, Respondent remained on paid leave status from about November 2001 through early-May 2002. 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 School Years From May 10, 2002, through the end of her contract year (end of May or June 2002), Respondent was assigned to Erwin Technical Center, a vocational school for adults. During the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years, Respondent was assigned to Bloomingdale High School ("Bloomingdale"). Respondent was a business education teacher at Bloomingdale in the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. During the 2002-2003 school year, there is no indication that Respondent was involved in incidents or behaviors that are at issue in this case. Incident With Colleague (2003-2004) In 2003-2004 school years, Jeffrey Peltzer was a teacher at Bloomingdale who taught computer support and web design. One morning Respondent came into Mr. Peltzer's classroom demanding an installation CD for Microsoft Office. Even though Mr. Peltzer sometimes helped the business education classes, he did not have access to software and was not responsible for providing software to those classes. As Mr. Peltzer was attempting to explain this to Respondent, she put her hand near his face and said, "Oh, no you don't." Respondent then ran over to Jack Pallin, a teacher who was in the classroom and said, "You saw what he did to me." Mr. Pallin responded, "I didn't see him [Mr. Peltzer] do anything." Respondent filed a grievance against Mr. Peltzer, presumably related to the installation CD. The grievance was resolved through e-mail communication between Ms. Kipley and Respondent. Mr. Peltzer had no first-hand knowledge about the grievance. Rather, it was his "understanding" that Respondent attempted to file a grievance against him, but he never saw any official grievance. In fact, Mr. Peltzer considered the matter between him and Respondent resolved and simply viewed it as a disagreement between two teachers. Media Center Incident (Fall 2003) At hearing, Clara O'Dell, then department chair at Bloomingdale, testified that on October 23, 2003, Respondent's students came to the media center/computer lab ("media center"). She also testified that the students began arriving at 2:08 p.m., and by 2:15 p.m., all of Respondent's students were in the media center; and that Respondent came into the media center at 2:15 p.m., stayed there for 15 minutes and then left. According to Ms. O'Dell, after Respondent left the media center, she went to the main office, signed out at 2:32 p.m., and noted that she had the approval of the principal to leave early. In a memo dated November 12, 2003, Ms. O'Dell states in part: It has been brought to my attention[5] that you sent your classes to the Media Center with a substitute teacher on the two days that you had CRISS training. [October 28 and November 4]. This caused problems and is against District Policy. . . On the first day of CRISS training your sub was sent back to the classroom. On the second day, your sub was allowed to stay because (1) she had served as a sub in the Media Center . . . . The November 12, 2003, memo indicates the following: on October 28, 2003, Respondent's students were not supervised in the media center because someone sent the substitute teacher assigned to cover Respondent's class back to the classroom; (b) on November 4, 2003, a substitute teacher was in the media center with the students; and (c) on October 28 and November 4, 2003, Respondent was released from her classes to attend some type of training. Student Schedule Change (January 2004) Chris Bowden was assistant principal for student affairs at Bloomingdale in the 2003-2004 school year. At the beginning of the semester, students at Bloomingdale were given the opportunity to change their class schedules. In January 2004, a student in Respondent's business education class, D.W., received a schedule change that moved her from Respondent's seventh-period class to her fifth-period class. The schedule change was necessary to accommodate the student's geometry course. Respondent received the schedule change for D.W. on Tuesday, January 6, 2004. Upon learning of the schedule change, Respondent sent Mr. Bowden an e-mail expressing her concern that the change would impact the "balancing of her class." Respondent also indicated her preference was that D.W. stay in the seventh-period class. In an e-mail response, Mr. Bowden advised Respondent that he would continue to monitor her class loads. Mr. Bowden also indicated that once the elective schedule change period was over, he would make the necessary adjustments to balance Respondent's classes, but that D.W.'s schedule change should be honored. On January 7, 2004, D.W. reported to Mr. Bowden that she went to Respondent's fifth-period class, but was not accepted in the class by Respondent.6 Mr. Bowden decided to escort the student to class to help her earn entry in the class and to clarify any misunderstanding Respondent may have had regarding D.W.'s schedule. At that point, even though Mr. Bowden had sent Respondent an e-mail asking her to honor D.W.'s schedule change, he was not sure Respondent had opened and read the email. Before Mr. Bowden could escort D.W. to Respondent's fifth-period class, the student asked if she could be removed from Respondent's class, and Mr. Bowden granted that request. Although Mr. Bowden made a commitment to allow D.W. to take a fifth-period class other than Respondent's class, prior to such change, D.W. had to "sign out" of Respondent's class. This school-wide procedure was required to provide teachers with notice when students were no longer assigned to their classes and, thus, could be taken off the class roll. In accordance with that procedure, D.W. was instructed to go and "sign out" from Respondent's fifth-period class and then present the schedule change to her new fifth-period teacher. When D.W. returned to Respondent's class, Respondent did not sign the student out of her fifth-period class because she did not believe that D.W. was not in her fifth-period class. Even though Respondent did not complete or sign D.W.'s form as required for the student to be "signed out" of Respondent's class, Respondent wrote a note on the form which stated, "[D.W.] is not in my fifth period [class]. She attended 5th yesterday. I think she skipped her 5th [with] Mr. M. Mason." Under the note, Respondent signed her name. The student returned to Mr. Bowden's office and told him that Respondent would not sign her out of the fifth-period class. Mr. Bowden then signed the schedule change form so the student could begin attending her new fifth-period class. On January 7, 2004, after Respondent did not execute the form allowing D.W. to "sign out" of Respondent's fifth- period class, Mr. Bowden went to Respondent's classroom to explain that there was obviously a misunderstanding. Respondent's class had just left for lunch, and no students were in the class during the following interaction. In his discussion with Respondent, Mr. Bowden attempted to clarify what he presumed to be a misunderstanding on Respondent's part. However, Respondent told him that there was no misunderstanding and that she understood perfectly. At the time, Respondent was sitting at her desk writing a student referral, which is a request for disciplinary action for an infraction of school rules. The referral was for D.W. based on Respondent's belief that the student had skipped her assigned fifth-period class with another teacher the previous day. Mr. Bowden believed that because D.W. had already signed out of Respondent's fifth and seventh-period classes, the student was no longer in any of Respondent's classes or Respondent's responsibility. In accordance with that belief, Mr. Bowden directed Respondent to cease writing the referral and told her that if she wrote the referral, it would not be acted upon. Respondent then told Mr. Bowden that she was going to keep the referral for her records. After the disciplinary referral issue was resolved, Mr. Bowden again reiterated to Respondent that there had been a misunderstanding concerning D.W.'s schedule change. During Respondent' and Mr. Bowden's exchange about the misunderstanding about the schedule change, Mr. Bowden observed that Respondent seemed disturbed and agitated. He also noticed that the issue concerning the schedule change for D.W. appeared to be very upsetting to Respondent. Attempts to Meet With Respondent (January 2004) Based on Respondent's reaction to the schedule change issue, Mr. Bowden decided he needed to meet with Respondent. He then attempted to talk with Respondent about scheduling the meeting, but Respondent cut him off in mid-sentence and told him, "This conference is over." She then stood up from her desk, let out an audible sound of "frustration, distress, a sigh, a moan," walked past Mr. Bowden, and then hurried down the hallway. At that time, the students in the corridor were in the midst of going to lunch. Meanwhile, Respondent continued hurrying, though not running, down the hallway in an apparent attempt to gain space between her and Mr. Bowden. The reason she left the classroom was that Mr. Bowden had insulted her, and she wanted to get away from him. Before Respondent left her classroom, it was clear to Mr. Bowden that: (a) D.W.'s schedule change issue had been resolved; (b) Respondent had agreed to not submit a disciplinary referral on D.W.; and (c) Respondent was upset about the scheduling issue and did not want to talk about that issue. Nonetheless, Mr. Bowden felt it was necessary to meet with Respondent about the scheduling issue and to do so as soon as possible. After Respondent exited her classroom, Mr. Bowden went to his office, confirmed that Respondent did not have a sixth-period class, and determined that that was a convenient time to meet with Respondent. What he did not know was that part of the sixth period was also Respondent's lunch period. Before he could contact Respondent about scheduling the meeting and between the fifth and sixth periods, Mr. Bowden saw Respondent sitting outside of the student affairs office at the beginning of the sixth period. Mr. Bowden then approached Respondent, indicated he had verified that she did not have a class that period, and told her that he needed to meet with her. Respondent then stated in a loud voice, "I am not going to meet with you; you know I do not like to meet with you and I am not going to do it."7 Respondent eventually moved from a side corridor that ran between the student affairs office and the main office and into the main corridor of the school. While in the main corridor, Respondent stopped walking and turned to Mr. Bowden and said, "Why do you want to meet with me?" At some point, Respondent was standing with her hands behind her back, staring at the ceiling. Mr. Bowden attempted to persuade Respondent to go into his office in the main office suite, which was about 15 feet away, rather than have this discussion in the main corridor. During that exchange, students were exiting the lunchroom, which was across from the main office. One teacher who was on duty and was very close to the main office area, heard the interaction between Mr. Bowden and Respondent. However, it was his impression that none of the students and staff members heard the exchange. This was evidenced by the fact that no students or staff members in the corridor at that time stopped and looked toward Mr. Bowden and Respondent. Mr. Bowden tried to direct her from the corridor into his office so he could gauge Respondent's mental state and determine whether she could teach her seventh-period class. Mr. Bowden also wanted to determine if he and Respondent could reach closure on the D.W. scheduling issue. Respondent followed Mr. Bowden's directive and came into the lobby of the main office, but would not go into Mr. Bowden's office. Instead, she told him, "I will meet you right here." She also asked him on what authority was he requesting to meet with her. Mr. Bowden explained that as the administrator on campus, he had the authority to request the meeting. Respondent then said to Mr. Bowden in a condescending manner, "I've told you, I am not going to meet with you. Do you understand that?" Respondent asked Mr. Bowden if she could make a telephone call, and he then directed her to an office where she could use the phone. While Respondent was using the telephone, Mr. Bowden left the main office to arrange for someone to cover Respondent's seventh-period class. After Respondent completed her call, she left the main office. At some point thereafter, Mr. Bowden learned from his secretary that Petitioner had left the office. Prior to the sixth period's ending, Mr. Bowden eventually found Petitioner in her classroom with another teacher, Fadia Richardson. After Ms. Richardson left the classroom, Mr. Bowden told Respondent that her seventh-period class would be arriving soon and that she should not be in the classroom when they arrived. Respondent went over to her desk where she had a jacket, put her arms through the jacket, pulled the jacket over her head, and turned her back to Mr. Bowden. From that point, when Mr. Bowden was trying to talk to Respondent, she placed her hands over her ears or fingers in her ears, looked away from Mr. Bowden into the corner and said, "I'm not listening to you anymore. I'm not listening to you anymore." Mr. Bowden was concerned about Respondent's behavior and found it disturbing to watch a person get to this point. Mr. Bowden acknowledged that he was not a mental health professional or law enforcement officer, and did not "know what [he] was dealing with." However, Mr. Bowden believed "that we were in the middle of some sort of breakdown." While Respondent continued to display the behavior described above, Mr. Bowden continually and repeatedly said to Respondent, "You can not be here when your students arrive." At that point, Mr. Bowden's primary concern was that Respondent leave the classroom before the 25 or 30 students arrived for Respondent's seventh-period class. Prior to the students' arriving for the seventh period, Respondent left the classroom. Because Mr. Bowden did not know what Respondent's mental state was at the time, he decided not to pursue her. Instead, Mr. Bowden followed up to make sure there was another teacher to cover Respondent's seventh-period class. He then went to his duty area, the main corridor outside the main office, to supervise the class change. While he was in the main corridor, Mr. Bowden's secretary informed him that Respondent was waiting for him in the main office. Mr. Bowden went to the main office, saw Respondent sitting quietly on a sofa waiting for him, and observed that she now had a "normal demeanor." Mr. Bowden was surprised that Respondent had come to the office, but given her calm demeanor at that time, he asked if she was there to meet with him. In response, Respondent stated emphatically that she was not going to meet with him. Elizabeth Stelter, the school principal at Bloomingdale, came into the area and heard the exchange between Mr. Bowden and Respondent and offered to sit in on the conference as a third party. Respondent then again stated, "I'm not meeting with him." At that point and with only about an hour remaining in the school day, Ms. Stelter told Respondent that she was free to leave school for the day. After the January 7, 2004, incident involving Respondent's failure to meet with Mr. Bowden, Respondent was removed from the classroom at Bloomingdale. The Jefferson and Bloomingdale incidents were similar in that both involved a male school administrator directing Respondent to come into the office area to meet with that administrator about her (Respondent's) conduct. Grievance Filed by Respondent On January 8, 2004, Ms. Kipley spoke with Respondent about the incident involving Mr. Bowden that happened the day before. Respondent discussed her feelings about the incident and indicated that she felt that the administration was out to get her and that she was being harassed by Mr. Bowden. Respondent also indicated she was upset that Mr. Bowden had interrupted her during her lunch time and believed that he should have approached her at another time. During the meeting, Respondent was visibly upset, but she was even-tempered and not loud. On an unspecified date, Respondent filed a grievance against Mr. Bowden. That grievance was determined to be unfounded. Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation On January 26, 2004, Ms. Kipley informed Respondent that she would have to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation. This evaluation was being conducted because of the School District's concern about what appeared to be unstable behavior and insubordinate behavior. The School District wanted this in-depth evaluation to determine: (a) whether Respondent was fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher; and whether she could safely instruct children and interact appropriately with her colleagues, peers and administrators. Evaluation Results The School District referred Respondent to James Edgar, M.D., for a fitness-for-duty evaluation "because of a pattern of unstable and insubordinate behavior toward parents, students and administration." Dr. Edgar conducted the evaluation in or about early March 2004 and prepared a report summarizing the results of that assessment. Based on the evaluation, Dr. Edgar reached the following conclusions: I find no psychiatric disorder that would account for "pattern of unstable or insubordinate behavior toward parents, students and administrators". From a psychiatric perspective, [Respondent] has no impairment that would interfere with her ability to safely instruct minor children, appropriately interact with students, parents, staff and the administration. Dr. Edgar's report notes that the results of the evaluation are based on information provided by Respondent and records provided by the School District and collateral sources. The specific records provided by the School District were not described or identified. Dr. Edgar's report notes that Respondent advised him of Dr. Feldman's diagnosis of PTSD and that she had been seeing Dr. Feldman for "problems with anger" since 2001. With regard to the PTSD diagnosis, Dr. Edgar indicated that he had not reviewed the records of Dr. Feldman and his evaluation had found no evidence to support that diagnosis. Notwithstanding his conclusion, Dr. Edgar's report states that "additional information not disclosed to [him] could significantly alter the assessment results." Respondent's Current Status During this proceeding, Respondent explained, but did not attempt to defend or excuse her conduct that is at issue in this proceeding. According to Respondent, she realized only after the fact, and after therapy, that Mr. Cugno's voice was almost identical to one of the people who had been aggressive toward her and that Mr. Cugno's "getting in her face" definitely did trigger an episode. Respondent acknowledges that when she went in for her mandatory EPA evaluation in 2001, she was experiencing intense and sudden anger, but felt powerless to prevent it. However, years after receiving that diagnosis and therapy, Respondent is better able to deal with that issue. In therapy, Respondent has learned (a) what will trigger an episode with her and how to guard against it; (b) how to remain aware of the surroundings; (c) how she is interacting with those surroundings and to remove herself from the situation whenever possible; and (d) how to use relaxation techniques, such as deep breathing. Respondent's Disciplinary/Professional Record Except for this case, there have been no disciplinary actions brought against Respondent's educator's certificate. Throughout Respondent's teaching career, she has consistently earned satisfactory ratings on her performance evaluations. Even with the conduct at issue in this proceeding, there have been no allegations regarding Respondent's overall effectiveness in terms of instruction and classroom management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing, in its entirety, the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Debra Satchel. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Hernando County School Board (Board), the Petitioner, has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment, related to alleged excessive absences, during the 2007-2008 school year.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Board is charged with operating and administering the Hernando County School District. Through its principals and human resources personnel the Board is charged with operating and regulating all personnel matters, including the monitoring of attendance for all employees at each school operated by the Board. Mr. Charles Johnson was the Principal at Westside Elementary School (WES) for the 2007-2008 school year at issue in this case. He had been the principal at that school since 1988 and it was his duty, among other personnel matters, to monitor the attendance of his employees at the school. The Respondent was employed at WES during the 2007-2008 school year. She had been hired to work there for the first time that year. She had, however, been employed by the Board as a teacher since 1997. Prior to the school year in question, the Respondent had a very favorable record as a teacher for the Board. Soon after the Respondent came to work at WES for the 2007-2008 school year she began to exhibit a pattern of frequent absences. The principal, Mr. Johnson, became concerned with Respondent's absences in late September of 2007 because a parent-teacher conference was imminent and report cards or progress reports were due for the first nine-week grading period around that time. The principal maintained a record of the teachers' attendance, including the Respondent. He created a log documenting the Respondent's absences from August 2007 through January 2008. The Respondent was absent five days in August and present for ten days. She was present for ten days and absent for nine days in September. The Respondent was absent on both October 1 and 2, 2007, as well. The Respondent called the principal's secretary on October 2nd to advise that she had a doctor's appointment on the third and would return to work on the fourth. The Respondent did not return to work on October 4th, however. The principal thereupon sent the Respondent a letter advising her that her absences were excessive and she needed to report to work by October 10th. He gave her some lead time in getting back to work because he was unaware of the reasons why she was missing so much work. He also wanted to allow for any delays due to mailing time for his letter, which was mailed on October 4th. The Respondent called the principal and spoke with him on October 8th and advised him that she had been sick and had been "beaten-up." She assured him that she would return to work the next day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work the next day and also failed to come to work on October 10, 2007, as directed in the principal's letter. She did call the school office and leave a voice mail on the principal's phone that morning assuring him that she would be at work the next day, which was October 11th. The Respondent did not return to work on October 11th as promised. Because of her failure to return to work, the principal sent a letter to her dated October 15, 2007, advising her that he had scheduled a "pre-disciplinary hearing" for October 19, 2007, which she should attend. The purpose of that hearing was to give her an opportunity to explain her "excessive absenteeism." The Respondent thereupon was absent from work every day during the week of October 15th, and then failed to attend the scheduled hearing or meeting on October 19th. Moreover, she did not call or otherwise communicate with the principal that week to explain her absences or why she had missed the meeting. Thereafter, the Principal sent the Respondent a letter dated October 23, 2007, again scheduling a pre-disciplinary hearing. The hearing was scheduled for October 30th. The letter was both mailed and personally delivered to the Respondent. Upon receipt of the hand-delivered copy of the letter, the Respondent phoned the principal and spoke to him. According to Mr. Johnson, the Principal, the Respondent told him in this conversation that she had not opened his previous letters, but she assured him she would be at work the following day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work on the following day, which was October 25, 2007, nor did she attend the pre-disciplinary hearing on October 30th, which Mr. Johnson had scheduled. Mr. Johnson, therefore, sent a letter to the Respondent on October 31st advising her that he was recommending to the Superintendent that she be suspended with pay. He sent a letter to the School District office of Labor Relations and Professional Standards on the same day referring the matter to that office, along with copies of all the relevant documents he had which evidenced what be believed were excessive absences. Because of her 10 days or more of consecutive absences, under Board policy, the Respondent was administratively placed on unpaid leave of absence, instead of being suspended with pay as recommended by her principal. The unpaid leave of absence had an effective date of October 15, 2007. Such a leave of absence is designed to enable a principal to replace a teacher in the situation of the Respondent with a permanent certified teacher, to assure continuity of effective instruction. The Respondent was sent instructions regarding her leave of absence by mail on October 15, 2007, from the Human Resources Department of the District. She was thus informed that she could elect to go on extended personal leave or on family medical leave. No information was received from the Respondent in response to this communication, however. The Respondent maintains that she provided a document concerning family medical leave. That form, however, was merely a medical certification statement and not an actual application or request for family medical leave. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Respondent was not qualified for family medical leave, even had a proper application been submitted, because she had not worked a sufficient number of hours in the preceding school year to establish her entitlement to family medical leave under the relevant rules and policies. An employee conference was held with the Respondent on November 2, 2007. The Respondent, the principal, and Ms. Barbara Kidder, who is the Director of Labor Relations and Professional Standards for the School District, were in attendance at the meeting. The Respondent assured them at the meeting that she would return to work the following Monday, November 5th and thereafter maintain satisfactory attendance. She also agreed to seek assistance through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and agreed to advise the school when she had appointments with that program. It was not unusual for Mr. Johnson to have continued the disciplinary process and communication with the Respondent about her absenteeism throughout the month of October, even though she was on a leave of absence. She had been placed on that leave of absence by the District so that it could hire a replacement teacher. It was not a leave she had voluntarily requested. Moreover, even without considering the days of absence while she was on her administrative leave of absence, the principal had a basis for pursuing disciplinary action for the absences she had previously incurred. November 5, 2007, was approved by the District as the Respondent's "early return date" from that leave of absence, which had started on October 15th. Indeed, the Respondent came to work on Monday, November 5th. She was, however, absent for the rest of that week. She did not contact either the principal or his secretary concerning those absences. She called the automated system for assigning substitute teachers (SEMS), which does not constitute nor grant any excuse for an absence. It is merely a means of scheduling or assigning substitute teachers. School did not meet on November 12th, a Monday. On Tuesday, November 13th the Respondent called and left a voice mail message for the principal advising that she had been to the doctor on the Friday before for strep throat and a respiratory infection. She assured him that she would be back the following day November 14, 2007. The Respondent, however, did not report to work on November 14th, but instead called and spoke with the principal around 10:00 a.m., advising him that she just left the doctor's office. She advised him that she had a note indicating she would be clear to report to work on the following Monday. The Principal reminded her that the next week was Thanksgiving week and no school met that week. The Respondent then agreed to come to work on Monday, November 26th and advised that she would have the doctor's note with her at that time. The Respondent failed to report to work on November 26th, as she had promised and did not contact the Principal or his secretary concerning that absence. She also missed work November 27th through the 30th, and did not call the principal or his secretary to explain those absences. The principal accordingly sent her another letter on November 29th advising her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was again scheduled for December 4th to discuss her absences. She did not attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on December 4th nor did she report to work that entire week. She failed to contact the principal or his secretary and explain her absences from work that week and her absence from the scheduled meeting. On December 5, 2007, the principal sent another letter to the Respondent advising her that he was referring her case or situation to the labor relations office. On that same date he sent a memorandum to the director of the labor relations office enclosing all the relevant documentation he had regarding the absences. That office then sent the Respondent a letter on December 5th which advised her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was scheduled for December 12th. The pre-disciplinary meeting was held on December 12th and the Respondent and Ms. Kidder were in attendance. Ms. Kidder gave the Respondent information on the EAP and advised her that she would be reviewing the Respondent's case with the Human Resources Office and the Petitioner's attorney. On December 14th the Respondent met with Ms. Kidder and the principal. The Respondent on this occasion was given a "letter of direction," advising her that she would be assigned a "mentor" and advising her of procedures for absences. The procedures she was directed to follow for absences included a stipulation that a doctor's note would be required for all future absences. The letter of direction given to the Respondent on December 14th contained the following requirements or procedures for the Respondent to follow with regard to her work and her absences: She was be assigned a "mentor" teacher to assist her with transitioning back to work. She was to report to administration each day before reporting to her classroom. She was to meet weekly with administration to review her attendance and her progress. She was expected to be in attendance each day starting Monday, December 17, 2007, and was to follow the Principal's specific directions regarding the process for obtaining approval for sick leave. She was to contact the principal if she had any questions concerning working hours, timesheets, absences, tardiness, sickness at work, leaving the building or related employee issues. She was being placed on probationary status for one year and any future violations of Petitioner's policies or procedures or any administrative directives would constitute "just cause" for disciplinary action up to and including termination. She was expected to contact EAP and attend counseling sessions as recommended by the staff. She was then to document the completed counseling sessions to her principal. During the December 14, 2007, meeting, the Respondent agreed to return to work as directed. She gave no indication that she would be unable to return to work or perform her duties or that there would be any restrictions on her ability to return to work. The Respondent provided no doctor's notes explaining illnesses or absences during either the December 14th meeting or the November 2nd meeting with the Principal. In fact, the Respondent did not return to work the following Monday, December 17th. She also missed the rest of that week and did not contact administration directly about her absences as she had been directed to do on December 14th and as the "letter of instruction" had directed her to do. The Respondent produced phone records at the hearing and testified that certain calls represented conversations with either the Principal or his secretary. This was in an effort to show that she had properly explained her absences. She did not, however, provide corroborating testimony as to which of the calls on the records were specific to a person as opposed to simply leaving a voice mail for that number or receiving no answer at all. In any event, Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent a letter on December 20th reminding her that it was her responsibility to provide a doctor's note in explanation of her absences and that she was supposed to return to work on December 17, 2007. The letter reminded the Respondent that her attendance was critical. The last week of December 2007 and the first week of January 2008, constituted the District's school Christmas Break. The first day of school following Christmas Break was Monday, January 7, 2008. The Respondent did not return to work that day, even though she later presented notes from Doctors Khalil and Alshaar indicating that she was able to work that day. The Respondent did report for work on January 8th, but then was absent for January 9th and 10th. She reported for work on January 11th, but later produced a note from Dr. Alshaar indicating that she should be excused for that day. Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent another letter on January 25, 2008, advising her that a "pre-determination hearing" had been scheduled for February 1, 2008, to again review her absences since January 7, 2008. The Respondent acknowledges that she received the correspondence from the Petitioner referenced above. She was also aware of the Petitioner's polices and procedures on attendance and leaves of absence. She signed a receipt indicating that she had received the Staff Handbook which outlines specific policies and references the School Board Policy Manual in general. Additionally, the Respondent acknowledged to the Principal that "time and attendance" were reviewed during her "new employee orientation" at the school. Teacher absences have a negative impact on the classroom, the students and the school. The principal had to ask other teachers to cover the Respondent's classroom and to use substitutes. A teacher's credibility and the trust of students is impaired when the teacher is constantly absent or alternately appearing or being absent from the classroom on a frequent basis. Mr. Johnson established that the Respondent had the worst attendance record he had experienced with a teacher in his 20 or so years as a principal. Her absences for the 2007-2008 school year far exceeded that of any other teacher at the school. The Collective Bargaining Agreement covering teachers in Hernando County, including the Respondent, provides that sick leave is allowable without loss of pay as provided for by Florida Law and that personal leave should be approved by work site administrators, except in cases of substantial emergency. The Hernando County Staff Handbook is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 24. It provides the details of the Board's policies and procedures on absences, leaves of absence, sick leave and leaves made necessary by sudden emergencies, etc. The general information concerning leaves of absence, the policies and procedures concerning family medical leave, notification of absence, absence without leave, sick leave, depicted in that exhibit are incorporated in these Findings of Fact by reference. Those policies and procedures include the requirement that where there is any doubt as to the validity of a sick leave claim, the superintendent may require the filing of a written certification of illness from a licensed physician or other supporting evidence if personal illness is not involved. It then provides the consequences of false claims for sick leave, proceeding to list cancellation of a teacher's contract or for action seeking revocation of a teaching contract. It also includes a provision that an application for sick leave due to extended illness shall have attached to it a statement from a practicing physician certifying that such leave is essential and indicating the probable duration of the illness and the needed leave. There is no question, given the pattern of extensive absences, and given the Respondent's lack of communication with the principal, or even the principal's secretary, concerning the reason for her absences or the legitimacy of any illness, that the Principal could have doubts as to the validity of any sick leave or illness claims. He was thus proceeding within the appropriate policies contained in the Manual and Handbook in requiring physician certification or proof concerning illness or absences, which mostly was not provided by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Hernando County Florida terminating the Respondent from her position as a teacher with that School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Jennifer M. Gallagher 1223 Sanger Avenue Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Wayne S. Alexander, Ed.D. Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue Whether the placement of Respondent in the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years, the Respondent, Joey Segura (Joey), was classified as an 11th grader and 12th grader, respectively, at Miami Killian Senior High School, Dade County, Florida. On October 20, 1992, Steve Whaley, Joey's D.C.T. teacher, referred Joey to the Assistant Principal, Judith Cooper, for excessive absences. Joey's mother was advised of the absences. Ms. Cooper reprimanded Joey and referred him to Mr. Banaszak, his guidance counselor. On Janaury 7, 1993, Joey's math teacher, Mrs. Rodriguez, referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for being late to class and presenting a bogus pass. Joey refused to serve detentions for the tardies and the pass. Joey was reprimanded and issued two Saturday schools for cutting class and refusing to serve the detentions. A Saturday school is a disciplinary measure used by the school system whereby the student attends class on Saturday. Joey was again referred to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On January 22, 1993, Mr. Whaley referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for excessive absences. Ms. Cooper talked to Joey's mother, reprimanded Joey, and referred Joey to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On January 25, 1993, Mrs. Rodriguez referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for leaving class without permission after Mrs. Rodiguez told him he could not leave. Ms. Cooper called Joey's mother, reprimanded Joey, and referred Joey to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On February 16, 1993, Joey was given a ten-day outdoor suspension for calling Mr. Whaley an "asshole" and a "fucking asshole." Joey was again referred to Mr. Banaszak. On March 23, 1993, Mr. Flipse, one of Joey's teachers, referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for excessive tardiness and refusal to serve detentions. Joey told Mr. Flipse that he did not have to serve detentions. Ms. Cooper called Joey's father and related what was happening. Joey was reprimanded and given a Saturday school. Joey did not serve the Saturday school and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Joey stated he would not serve the indoor suspensions and instead chose to have a three-day outdoor suspension. 8 There was another incident in which Ms. Cooper had to suspend Joey. Joey got angry about the suspension and told Ms. Cooper that she better not mess with him, he would blow up her car. Ms. Cooper informed the principal about the threat and a conference was set with Joey's parents and his teachers. Ms. Cooper had recommended to the principal that Joey be referred to a disciplinary school program. Another conference was held in which an outside counselor hired by the Seguras participated along with Joey's parents and teachers. It was decided that since Joey was undergoing private counseling that he would be given another chance to stay in school and work at improving. During the 1992-1993 school year Mr. Banaszak met with Joey not less than twelve times concerning tardiness and academic difficulties. Joey's final grades for 1992-1993 were four D's and two F's. On September 20, 1993, Mr. Coyle, Joey's D.C.T. teacher, referred Joey to Thomas Jones, the assistant principal, for leaving class without permission. Joey was given a Saturday school. For the first semester of 1993-1994, Joey chose to take a photography class taught by Richard Ladwig. Joey's lack of attendance and his tardiness were problems in Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Ladwig discussed the problems with Joey and issued several detention notices to him. Joey ripped up the detention notices. Mr. Ladwig finally gave Joey an exclusion notice. Instead of going to exclusion hall as he should have, Joey ripped up the exclusion notice, and told Mr. Ladwig that he was going to Ms. Cooper's office. In September, 1993, Joey asked permission to leave Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Ladwig told him that he could not leave class. Joey retorted, "You're pissing me off." In September, 1993, Mr. Banaszak met with Joey and his father to discuss absences and tardies. Joey requested to be transferred out of Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Banaszak told him that it was not the school's policy to transfer a student four weeks into the school semester, and that Joey needed the photography class to meet his fine arts requirement for graduation. On October 11, 1993, Mr. Banaszak met with Joey, his parents, and Mr. Jones to discuss Joey's academic problems. Mr. Banaszak was concerned about whether Joey could graduate. Because of his failed courses he was almost an entire year behind in annual credits. A plan was devised to make up the credits through summer school and night school, thus, enabling Joey to graduate in the fall of 1994. Mr. Banaszak had authorized Joey's taking night classes on other occasions to help make up credits. Although Joey enrolled in the night classes he never recieved any credits, indicating that he either did not attend or did not complete the work. Joey was failing the photography class. He missed several quizzes, missed a lot of notes, resulting in a notebook grade of "F," failed some tests, and sometimes read a newspaper in class rather than doing his assigned work. One of the assignments in the Mr. Ladwig's class was to develop negatives in class and make contact prints from the negatives. Joey did not develop negatives in class. Mr. Ladwig allowed students who failed to do the developing portion of the assignment to have negatives developed outside of class to be used in making the contact prints in class. Joey did bring some negatives to class and make contact prints in class. One of Mr. Ladwig's sixth grade students had been complaining to Mr. Ladwig that someone had stolen his negatives. Mr. Ladwig told the student to take a look at the contact prints to see if any of the prints were made from his negatives. The student identified the prints made by Joey as being made from his negatives. 20 On several occasions, Mr. Ladwig asked Joey to bring his negatives to class. Finally on October 19, 1993, Mr. Ladwig told Joey that there was a dispute over the ownership of the negatives which he had used and told him to go and get the negatives from his locker. Joey got very angry and started to leave the class. At the doorway, Joey stopped and said, "If or when I see you on the street, Dude, I'm going to fucking kill you." The threat was heard by several of the students in the class. 21. Mr. Ladwig referred the matter to Mr. Jones. Later in the day, Joey along with Mr. Jones and Mr. Lewis, the security person, came to Mr. Ladwig's classroom while class was in session. Joey accused Mr. Ladwig of calling him a liar. Mr. Ladwig asked them to leave. On the way out, Joey said, "Ladwig, Dude, I'll deal with you later." 22 Joey gave Mr. Jones the names of several witness and Mr. Jones talked with them. An assault on a staff member is a Group IV violation according to The Secondary Code of Student Conduct, which defines an assault on a staff member as follows: Intentional verbal or physical threat to do violence to a staff member by a student who possesses an apparent ability to do so and in doing so creates a well-founded fear that such violence is imminent. The Secondary Code of Student Conduct provides that the following disciplinary actions be taken for a Group IV violation: Parent contact/parent conference. Administrator/parent conference. Ten-day suspension. Recommendation for expulsion, administrative assignment to Opportunity School Program, or placement in a substance abuse program. Refer criminal acts to the Dade County Public School Police and the local police agency for appropriate legal action. When appropriate, seek restitution or restoration. Mr. Jones reported the incident to the Dade County Police Department. Mr. Jones called Joey's mother and met with Joey's father. Joey was given a ten-day outdoor suspension with a recommendation for explusion. Joey's father asked for a second conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Ladwig so that Mr. Segura could confront the teacher. Mr. Ladwig told Mr. Segura that he thought Joey meant it when he said he was going to kill him. Mr. Jones recommended that Joey be assigned to an opportunity school program rather than being expelled. His recommendation was based on Joey's continuous disruptive behavior, including the last incident with Mr. Ladwig. Joey's grades for the first nine weeks of the 1993-1994 school year consisted of four F's, one Incomplete, and one "C." Joey's behavior of excessive tardiness, verbal assault on his teacher, his continuous defiance of authority, and his disrespect for his teachers interferred with his own learning and the educational process of others. The needs of Joey are not being effectively met by the conventional education programs in the public schools. Joey was assigned to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South in lieu of explusion. This program provides students an opportunity to learn in a small group environment, more counseling on a one-to- one basis, and a more structured environment. Joey did not go to Douglas MacArthur South. He had been attending some adult education classes at night to get credit for classes which he had flunked, but he dropped out when he was assigned to Douglas MacArthur South.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assigning Joey Segura to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6906 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-7 Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as to the number 12 as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, but otherwise accepted in substance that there were referrals for the reasons stated. Paragraphs 9-15: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire School Board of Dade County 450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Miguel Segura 6114 Southwest 127th Place Miami, Florida 33173 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to place Respondent, a classroom teacher, on administrative leave without pay from November 20, 2013, through the remainder of the 2013- 2014 school year due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, as alleged in the December 19, 2013, Statement of Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at PSLHS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the District for approximately 20 years. Respondent has a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33. As a classroom teacher, Respondent is charged with instructing high school students. Regular attendance is considered by Petitioner to be an essential function of the position of classroom teacher. Pursuant to Board Policy 6.549(1)(a), Respondent was entitled to four days of sick leave as of the first day of employment of each school year and thereafter earned one sick day for each month of employment, for a maximum of ten sick days per school year. 2012-2013 School Year During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, Respondent was assigned to teach intensive math classes to students who struggle to pass required state exams required for graduation. Hargadine, in coordination with Petitioner’s Human Resources Department, directed Assistant Principal April Rogers (Rogers) to meet with Respondent on October 2, 2012, to address Respondent’s pattern of absenteeism and the impact it was having on students, and to explore the possibility of accommodations if his frequent absences were caused by a health condition. At least one student asked to be removed from Respondent’s class due to the frequency of Respondent’s absences. As directed, on October 2, 2012, Rogers met with Respondent and discussed Petitioner’s concerns that Respondent’s absences resulted in his students missing math instruction for 39 percent of their scheduled classes. Respondent was notified that he had already exhausted his available sick leave and he had not properly filled out leave requests in a timely manner. During this meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his absences had a negative impact on students. This conference was memorialized in a Summary of Conference dated October 2, 2012, issued to Respondent from Rogers. After the October 2, 2012, meeting, Respondent was also absent on October 16 through 19, 2012. On October 23, 2012, Rogers issued a Letter of Concern to Respondent detailing his continued excessive absenteeism and failure to timely request leave. The letter advised that Respondent’s absenteeism amounted to 17 of 42 instructional days and equated to 40 percent of lost instructional time for Respondent’s students. This letter reiterated that Respondent’s absences directly affect his students’ educational success. In addition to Respondent disrupting the continuity of the classroom by failing to attend work, Respondent also failed to supply adequate lesson plans and/or provide for student instruction while he took unapproved leave. On several occasions, Hargadine or her assistant principal had to create or add to the lesson plans to enable a substitute to teach Respondent’s classes. Respondent’s absenteeism and lack of proper notice of his absences resulted in his students being “taught” by individuals who did not have a college degree in mathematics, or even education, as some of these individuals were substitutes (who only need a high school diploma), para-educators, and even clerical workers. When staff members were required to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, it negatively impacted both students and co-workers. For example, if a clerical worker or para-educator was called to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, their own work would have to wait and they would not be able to complete their own specific job duties in order to ensure coverage for Respondent’s students. After receiving the October 23, 2012, Letter of Concern, Respondent was also absent on October 31, November 1, November 2, November 5, and November 6, 2012. As the assistant superintendent for Human Resources, Ranew assists site-based administrators (principals and assistant principals) concerning staff discipline and adherence to policies and procedures. Rogers requested Ranew’s assistance in addressing Respondent’s absenteeism. On November 6, 2012, Ranew issued a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism. This letter from Ranew reminded Respondent of the importance of him submitting leave requests because his school would not know of his absence even if he properly requested a substitute teacher using the AESOP (computerized) system. By this letter, Ranew also attempted to initiate the “interactive process” required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although Respondent had not identified himself as a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA, his excessive absenteeism suggested that he might need an accommodation if his absenteeism was being caused by a medical condition. The November 6 letter stated, “to the extent that your absenteeism is being caused by medical condition, the District may be agreeable to allowing you to take a leave [of absence] to accommodate such a condition, if that would help. In the event you realize that you are unable to regularly be at work due to a medical condition, you should consider promptly requesting an extended leave of absence (e.g., for this semester or the school year), and the District would be willing to consider such a request.” To determine Respondent’s potential eligibility for an accommodation pursuant to the ADA, Ranew specifically requested that Respondent’s doctor provide documentation clarifying: “a) any specific condition/impairment that Respondent has, as well as the cause; b) any restrictions/limitations on Respondent’s work duties as a teacher; c) the expected duration for each limitation or whether it is permanent; d) whether the condition is controllable with the use of medication, and if yes: what is the mitigating effect of this medication; and whether Respondent could fully perform his job duties, with the aid of such medication.” In response to Ranew’s letter, Respondent provided the District with a doctor’s note from Dr. Kenneth Palestrant dated November 7, 2012, stating that the majority of Respondent’s visits to the clinics occur between the months of January through May and September through December (effectively during the calendar school year) and speculated that Respondent “may” be exposed to allergens in the school building or in his classroom. Dr. Palestrant explained that Respondent was being treated with antibiotics and allergy medications and recommended Respondent receive an allergy test from an allergist to identify the specific allergens. Dr. Palestrant found that other than the potential environmental exposure to an allergen, he found “no reason [Respondent] cannot perform his full duties as a school teacher as he has no impairment and the medications he has been given have no mitigating effect upon his performance.” After receiving Dr. Palestrant’s November 7, 2012, note, and after receiving an e-mail from Respondent in which he wondered if something in his classroom might be causing his medical condition, Ranew asked Sanders to inspect Respondent’s classroom. Sanders’ job duties would require him to facilitate any remedial action with regard to Respondent’s classroom, should one be needed. In response to this request, Respondent’s classroom was inspected but nothing of concern was discovered within the room. Nonetheless, the classroom was sanitized using two methods: with an ozone machine to kill bacteria and other germs, including mold, and also with a fogger using disinfectant that kills microorganisms, bacteria, and mold, as a precaution. On November 15, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew, informing her that he was “being evaluated by an Allergist, and will be setting up a colonoscopy per doctor’s orders Tuesday, [November 20, 2012].” On November 15, 2012, Ranew sent an e-mail to Respondent requesting that he provide her with an allergist report when complete. On November 16, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew in which he discussed beginning to take a new allergy medicine, and promised to fax the allergist report to her. Ranew issued a letter to Respondent dated December 21, 2012, advising him that she had yet to receive an allergist report, again requesting such a report or medical clarification. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter also reminded Respondent that regular, consistent, punctual attendance, and working a full assigned workday are essential functions of his position as a classroom teacher. Although Respondent did not request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), when he failed to provide the requested allergist report five weeks after Ranew requested it, and Respondent continued his pattern of excessive absenteeism, the District advised that it intended to designate his absences as FMLA-qualifying. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter to Respondent again requested clarification from Respondent’s doctor/allergist, with a focus on “whether there is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that will enable you to perform the essential functions of [your] position (classroom teacher).” Respondent was told, “[i]n the event that you believe that something such as trees, grass, or something else near your current classroom/school may be causing your condition, which has resulted in many absences, the [School] District is willing to consider a request to transfer you to another location.” Notably, Respondent did not provide any information from a health care provider which suggested any work modification would enable him to perform the essential functions of his job, nor did he take advantage of Petitioner’s offer of a transfer to another location. In response, Respondent emailed Ranew on December 29, 2012, advising that his allergy test would be conducted on January 3, 2013, and he would provide the results to her as soon as he received them. Respondent also expressed interest in obtaining information regarding short-term disability leave. On January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that if he desired to take leave in connection with his private insurance company’s short-term disability policy, she requested that he advise her “as soon as possible as the [School] District may be able to accommodate you with an extended leave.” There is no evidence that Respondent pursued Ranew’s offer for an accommodation in connection with short-term disability. By letter dated January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that she still had not received a copy of his allergist’s report, and she “had been trying to accommodate [Respondent], but it is difficult to do when the information [the School District] need[s] is still not provided.” Ranew again reminded Respondent that his students needed continuity in the classroom and, if he was unable to provide that, other arrangements would need to be made for the upcoming semester. Respondent provided Ranew with an allergist report dated January 18, 2013. The report explained that Respondent tested positive for multiple allergens, and recommended treatments, including immunotherapy (allergy injections), prescribed medications (nasal sprays), and surgery (balloon sinuplasty). Respondent’s allergist identified Respondent being allergic to 42 antigens, including cats, dogs, various grasses, weeds, trees, dust mites and cockroaches, and mold. Respondent’s allergist recommended Respondent undergo surgery, and Petitioner permitted Respondent to take FMLA leave for such surgery. Respondent was also permitted to intermittently use all remaining FMLA leave available to him, which he exhausted and which expired on March 28, 2013, due to the conclusion of his FMLA designated 12-month period. In addition to utilizing all FMLA leave available, the District also provided an additional 21 days of unpaid leave during the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year to Respondent, which was above and beyond his allotted sick leave, as well as above and beyond the 60 days of FMLA leave to which he was entitled. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was absent 89 out of 191 possible work days, which accounts for an absenteeism rate of 48 percent. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent only worked 772.50 hours. Although Petitioner designated additional unpaid days as FMLA, Respondent was not eligible for additional FMLA leave beginning in March 2013 through March 2014 because he had not worked the requisite number of hours in the preceding 12- month period to be eligible for FMLA leave. 2013-2014 School Year On August 9, 2013, prior to the beginning of the 2013- 2014 school year, Ranew sent a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism; explaining that his regular attendance was expected during the upcoming 2013-2014 school year; that his students need continuity in the classroom and if he was unable to provide that continuity, that other arrangements needed to be made for the next school year; that he should not expect to be automatically extended any additional unpaid leave during the 2013-2014 school year; and he would only receive the sick leave to which he was already entitled. Ranew advised Respondent that when he returned for work at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year he would have four days of permitted sick leave advanced to him, and would accrue one additional day at the end of each month from August through February. In this letter, Ranew also told Respondent that it was her understanding that the sinus surgery that he underwent was part of his treatment plan to resolve the sinus and allergy issues which seriously impacted his attendance (during the 2012- 2013 school year) and that his chronic sinusitis was expected to improve post operatively. Respondent did not challenge or correct Ranew’s understanding on these issues and did not indicate that additional absences were anticipated. Ranew had serious concerns about the lack of consistent instruction for Respondent’s students due to Respondent’s absenteeism. Only 11 of Respondent’s 94 students passed the standardized math examination required for graduation in the 2012-2013 school year, which is approximately a 12 percent pass rate. This was significantly lower than the 50 percent pass rate of Respondent’s colleagues who also taught the same type of “struggling” math students. In order to minimize the potential disruption to students caused by excessive absenteeism, Respondent was assigned to teach accounting classes for the new school year which are not courses required for graduation. Respondent was also assigned to a different classroom, in a different building, for the 2013-2014 school year. As of October 3, 2013, Respondent was absent on August 27, 28, 29, 30, and September 5, 9, 20, 23, 25, 26, and October 2, 2013, well in excess of the sick leave that he was permitted to take in accordance with Board policy. By letter dated October 3, 2013, Ms. Ranew wrote to Respondent advising him that his pattern of absenteeism has a direct negative impact on an orderly learning environment and referring to her August 9 correspondence wherein she directed Respondent to advise the District if he needed leave above and beyond the sick days that he was permitted to take. Ranew advised Respondent that he had not provided the requested medical documentation that would support that he had a medical condition necessitating leave from his job, but that the District was continuing its attempt to engage Respondent in an interactive process concerning his medical condition, and again requested documentation from Respondent’s doctor addressing his recent absences and his current condition. In response to Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent submitted a doctor’s note dated October 9, 2013, which advised that Respondent’s condition “can be treated with nasal sprays and intermittent antibiotics” but raised the potential for future treatment to include additional surgical procedure(s). Importantly, the doctor’s note clearly explained that Respondent “can perform as a teacher with [his medical conditions], though he may notice hearing loss changes whenever he has middle ear fluid.” The October 9, 2013, doctor’s note Respondent submitted accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September, but failed to address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. Even after receiving Ms. Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent was absent on October 9, 21, and 22, 2013. As of October 24, 2013, Respondent was absent 14 days out of 46 instructional days for the 2013-2014 school year. Ranew worked with Yost in the decision to recommend to the Board that Respondent be placed on administrative leave without pay. The basis for that recommendation was Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and failure to follow protocol for sick leave. By letter dated October 24, 2013, Yost advised Respondent that she was recommending his placement on a leave of absence specifically because of his continual excessive absenteeism, which had been a constant disruption to the classroom and directly impacted an orderly, continuous learning environment for his students. Yost believed that recommending Respondent be placed on leave without pay was not disciplinary in nature, but rather done to provide him an accommodation to resolve any issues which had caused his excessive absenteeism. On October 24, 2013, Yost placed Respondent on “home assignment” with pay through November 19, 2013, at which time the Board voted to accept Yost’s recommendation to place Respondent on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. The Charges Against Respondent In its Statement of Charges in Support of the Placement on Administrative Leave Without Pay filed on December 19, 2013, the District advanced four theories for Respondent’s leave without pay: incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. “Incompetency” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3) as, “the inability, failure or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity.” “Gross insubordination” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(4) as “the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the required duties.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-5.056(2)(c). “Willful neglect of duty” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the “intentional or reckless failure to carry out required duties.” “Misconduct in Office,” according to rule 6A-5.056(2), is satisfied by a showing of one or more of the following: a violation of the adopted school board rules, a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (as adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001), or behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment. The Board’s Policy 6.301(3)(b) identifies a variety of terminable offenses including: Insubordination * * * (x) Failure to follow a direct order in normal performance of employee’s job * * * Failure to notify supervisor and receive permission for one or more consecutive workdays’ absence Unsatisfactory work performance Excessive absences or tardiness Neglect of duty Unauthorized absences * * * (xix) Violation of any rule, policy, regulation, or established procedure * * * (xxix) Any violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, the Standards of Competent and Professional Performance, or the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees * * * (xxxiv) Failure to correct performance deficiencies The finding that Respondent violated one and/or multiple Board policies relating to his excessive absenteeism necessarily shows that he is guilty of “misconduct in office.” Respondent’s Defenses Reason for Absences Respondent does not dispute his record of absenteeism or the District’s record of communicating its concern regarding his chronic absenteeism and its effect on his students. Rather, Respondent asserts that his absenteeism was related to the environmental conditions at PSLHS. Respondent believes that he suffered from chronic sinus problems, headaches, and repeated scratchy throats due to possible exposure to mold or other allergens at the school which caused many of his absences. According to Respondent, PSLHS suffered storm damage in 2008 that resulted in mold growing around his classroom door. After school authorities were notified by Respondent of the mold issue, the door and mold was removed. Respondent has not worked in that classroom in more than three years. Respondent admitted that some of his absences during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years were not related to sinus problems. For example, Respondent missed work when he stayed up late with a new puppy. Respondent also missed work to get massage therapy on several occasions. Several of Respondent’s absences were attributed to stomach issues. None of Respondent’s doctors identified any need for Respondent to be extensively absent from work due to any medical condition, other than his recommended sinus surgery which occurred in early 2013 and was covered by FMLA. No evidence was introduced at the hearing that any of Respondent’s doctors actually determined that anything either at PSLHS or within Respondent’s classroom caused Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, or that Respondent could not work at PSLHS due any medical reason. To the contrary, during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent provided 30 doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent provided four doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. Respondent admitted he was allergic to various grasses and trees common to Florida, and even admitted he was allergic to the grass in his own yard. When Respondent was asked if anything changed in his home environment between the 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 school years where his absences skyrocketed, he testified that he had just gotten a puppy. During the relevant time period, approximately 70 percent of Respondent’s absences occurred on days when the proceeding day was not a school day, which suggests it was unlikely that Respondent’s absences were due to the environment at his work site. Although Respondent claimed his school environment exacerbated his allergies, his absences at issue are full-day absences where he called in sick for the entire day rather than leaving work during the workday. At no time did Respondent or his healthcare providers suggest that PSLHS or Respondent’s classroom should have air quality testing. Respondent admitted, on the days he was absent, he felt worse when he woke up at home than when he was at work in his classroom and when he was too sick to come to work he would wake up “hacking.” Further, while on administrative leave without pay, Respondent showed up to PSLHS in January 2014 to oversee a wrestling tournament that he previously helped organize. It is illogical that Respondent would voluntarily return to the very place which he now suggests made him so sick that he needed to continuously take days off without available leave or sick time. No credible evidence was presented to suggest that Respondent’s chronic absenteeism was as a result of the District’s failure “to provide a suitable working environment,” as alleged by Respondent.1/ Use of Administrative Leave Rather Than Discipline The Board asserts that Respondent’s chronic pattern of absences during the 2012-2013 school year and the first few months of the 2013-2014 school year resulted in “just cause” for termination. However, in lieu of termination, Ranew proposed, and the Board accepted, her recommendation for administrative leave without pay. Ranew credibly testified that she believed this would give Respondent the opportunity to take care of any problems that were causing his absenteeism and allow him to successfully return to the classroom in the 2014-2015 school year. There is no provision under any statute, rule, or policy specifically providing the Board with the authority to place an employee on administrative leave without pay instead of a suspension without pay or termination.2/ Because of this, Respondent argues that he was deprived of due process by the Board and that the Board’s action constitutes the improper use of an unpromulgated rule. A “rule” is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as an: agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of rule. § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. No evidence was presented regarding any alleged Board “statement of general applicability” regarding the use of administrative leave without pay as a substitute for disciplinary action. Further, it is clear from the record that Respondent received all the process to which he was entitled--notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Respondent was provided a letter by hand delivery on October 24, 2013, from Yost in which he was advised that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment until the next Board meeting and that she intended to recommend he be placed on administrative leave without pay through the remainder of the school year due to his excessive absenteeism. He was notified that he had exhausted all paid leave yet continued to be absent. It was also noted that Respondent’s physician indicated he could perform as a teacher but may have a hearing loss when middle ear fluid is present. Notably, his physician’s letter accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September 2013, but did not address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. This letter advised Respondent that if he had any information to provide regarding why this action should not be taken, he could do so in a meeting or in writing. Accordingly, Respondent had notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Additionally, the Statement of Charges issued on December 19, 2013, and the formal administrative hearing before DOAH constituted notice and an evidentiary hearing-–the post adverse employment action due process to which Respondent was entitled. The undersigned has no doubt about the sincerity of the Board’s desire to see Respondent take time to address whatever was resulting in his absences and return to work successfully. However, to call Respondent’s “administrative leave without pay” a non-disciplinary action is an exercise in form over substance. While on leave, Respondent was not receiving his normal wages for teaching. He was not allowed to return to the school to teach for the balance of the school year.3/ Understandably, Respondent does not perceive his leave as beneficent. For all intents and purposes it is, in fact, a “suspension” without pay which, pursuant to the Board’s policies, applicable rules, and statutes, can only be imposed for “just cause.”4/ Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a pattern of excessive and chronic unexcused absenteeism during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, despite the District’s repeated reminders regarding the disruption caused by Respondent’s absences and its multiple attempts to accommodate any medical condition that might have been causing the absences.5/ This pattern resulted in a variety of terminable offenses as described in Board Policy 6.301(3)(b). It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of incompetency, as defined by rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)5. by virtue of his excessive absenteeism--a pattern which was not resolved after FMLA leave, 21 additional days of leave without pay during the 2012-2013 school year, and which continued into the new school year of 2013-2014. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination by virtue of his failure to perform his required duties, excessive absenteeism despite having no paid leave available, and failing to return to work on a consistent and regular basis after repeated and extensive counseling by the District regarding the consequences of his actions. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty by failing to regularly report to work or to properly request time off from work or make arrangements to have lesson plans available for substitute teachers. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office by virtue of his violation of School Board policies and disrupting his students’ learning environment by his chronic absenteeism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent’s suspension without pay from November 20, 2013, through the end of the 2013- 2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of his suspension; and reinstating Respondent’s employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014-2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2014.
