The Issue Whether Petitioner was retaliated against due to testifying by deposition in another employee’s employment discrimination lawsuit.
Findings Of Fact Amie Remington, Esquire, an attorney in private practice, was hired as a contract attorney by the State of Florida to represent the Department in an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Linwood Scott involving computer security violations and lax enforcement of the Department’s computer security policy that resulted in loss of State funds due to employee fraud. As part of the discovery in the Scott case, Ms. Remington deposed Petitioner on January 11, 2005. Prior to the deposition, Ms. Remington spoke with Katie George, Chief Legal Counsel for the Department, and obtained information as to all proposed witnesses, including Petitioner. At this time, Ms. Remington received information that Petitioner was identified for layoff. Mamum Rashied, the Department’s former District Operations Administrator, who retired on February 2, 2006, managed the Department’s operations for the four counties in District One; Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton. As District Operations Administrator, Mr. Rashied was the second person in charge of the district with purview over the Economic Self Sufficiency (ESS) Program. The ESS program was the program in which Petitioner was employed at a salary of $1215.00 bi- weekly. During calendar year 2005, the ESS program underwent a statewide reorganization resulting in the elimination of approximately 42 percent to 43 percent of ESS positions through layoffs in District One. Petitioner, then an Economic Self-Sufficiency Specialist II (ESSSII), was on the list for layoff. Placement on the layoff list was made based on a top-to-bottom ranking of employees. Each employee was to be rated by the unit supervisors and placed on the list in terms of their retainability. The rating list was forwarded to the Operations Manager for the Service Center. Each Service Center compiled a ratings list which was then forwarded to the District Program Office to be combined into one district list. Mr. Rashied received a copy of the district list which contained the Petitioner’s name sometime in December 2004. The layoff listing process took approximately two months and was in existence prior to the Petitioner giving her deposition in the Linwood Scott case on January 11, 2005. Prior to the layoffs, Department personnel conducted general sessions at the Service Center for all interested employees to gain information as to the potential layoff situation. However, Petitioner was unaware of these meetings and apparently did not participate in them. During her deposition in the Scott case, Petitioner testified that she had logged into her computer using her password and P number and then allowed another employee to use her computer to help her with a problem case. Petitioner had permitted the use of her computer in an effort to help the employee process the information her center was required to handle. Such aid and supervision was part of her duties as an ESSSII. Petitioner did not believe that her actions violated the security policy of the Department. However, such action was a violation of the Department’s computer security policy. Petitioner’s testimony related to the fact that such activity occurred often in her Department. After her testimony, Petitioner was terminated on January 27, 2005, effective February 7, 2005, prior to her being laid off. The termination was the result of the Petitioner’s violation of the Department’s computer security policy. Petitioner was subsequently reinstated on April 5, 2005, following a ruling by the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC) in favor of Petitioner, including payment of back pay and benefits. The ruling did not find that Petitioner had been retaliated against. Immediately following reinstatement, Petitioner was laid off effective April 5, 2005, pursuant to the prior layoff list which was still on-going. Importantly, if Petitioner had not been terminated she would have been laid off. Petitioner was subsequently rehired by the Department as an Economic Self-Sufficiency Specialist I (ESS-I) on September 2, 2005. The Petitioner’s personnel file indicated that she had been laid off and was subject to rehire. Based on a position opening and Petitioner’s qualifications, Petitioner was rehired and continues in the ESS-I position to date. Petitioner testified in her own behalf at the hearing. She asserted that she thought she was retaliated against because of her testimony in the Linwood Scott case. However, she offered no other evidence to show such retaliation and such supposition is insufficient to support a claim of retaliation. Likewise, Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Petitioner’s reasons for her initial termination and later layoff were pretexts to cover unlawful retaliation. Since there was insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s claim of retaliation, her Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 16th day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brittie Powers 106 Lakewood Road Pensacola, Florida 32507 Eric D. Schurger, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501-5734
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Miami-Dade County School Board's Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board, Respondent, and his Supervisors The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including Gertrude K. Edlelman/Sabal Palm Elementary School (Sabal Palm), Miami Norland Senior High School (Norland), and North Miami Senior High School (North Miami). The principals of these schools have ultimate supervisory authority over all School Board employees assigned to their schools, including custodial employees. Raul Gutierrez is now, and has been for the past three years, the principal of Sabal Palm. Mr. Gutierrez succeeded Gertrude Edelman, after whom the school is now named. Mr. Gutierrez had served as an assistant principal at the school under Ms. Edelman for five years before he became the school's principal. Selma McKeller is now, and has been for the past 11 years, the head custodian at Sabal Palm, having supervisory authority over all other members of the school's custodial staff. Willie Turner is now, and has been for the past four years, the principal of Norland. Gladys Hudson was an assistant principal at Norland during the 2002-2003 school year. Among her responsibilities was to oversee the school's entire custodial staff, including the head and lead custodians. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March of 1989. Respondent was initially hired as a custodian and assigned to Sabal Palm. In August 1998, while still assigned to Sabal Palm, Respondent was promoted to his present position, lead custodian, which is a supervisory position. Respondent remained at Sabal Palm until August 2002, when he was placed on "alternate assignment" at Norland, where he worked under the direct supervision of the school's lead custodian, Leaford Harris. In December 2002, Respondent was placed on "alternate assignment" at North Miami. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II of the AFSCME Contract is the contract's "[r]ecognition" article. Section 3 of Article II provides as follows: The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, Local 1184, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; and (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the MDCPS and the lines of administrative authority of MDCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; I. Contract out for goods or services; and J. Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Definitions are set forth in Article V of the AFSCME Contract. They include the following: * * * Section 17. Working Hours-- Those specified hours when employees are expected to be present and performing assigned duties. Section 18. Workday-- The total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties. * * * Section 27. Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. Section 4A of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[n]ewly-[h]ired [e]mployees." It provides as follows: Newly-hired employees in the bargaining unit (except temporary, hourly, or substitute employees) shall be considered probationary for the first three calendar months; thereafter, they shall be considered annual employees, subject to annual reappointment. During such probationary period, employees may be terminated without recourse under this Contract. If, at any time during the probationary period, the newly-hired employee's performance is considered unacceptable, the probationary employee shall be terminated. Section 13 of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract discusses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance. AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program. The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations. The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Employee Rights: Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program. An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[d]isciplinary [a]ction." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process," and it provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee[']s record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. A Conference-for-the-Record shall be held when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated investigation to determine if formal disciplinary action should be taken (i.e., letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal). A Conference-for- the-Record in and of itself shall not be considered disciplinary. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. The employee shall have the right to Union representation in Conferences-for-the- Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. A maximum of two Union representatives may be present at a Conference-for-the Record. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notice of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade," and it provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer or through the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action and to select the method of appeal. If the employee when appealing the Board action, does not select the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract the Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled, "Cause for Suspension," and it provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI describes the "[t]ypes of [s]eparation." It provides in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any of four [sic] distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- . . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- . . . . AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non- reappointment. Such employee may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . . Section 6 of Article XI addresses the subject of "[p]ersonnel [f]iles," and it provides as follows: A. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 231.291 Personnel Files - Public school system employee personnel files shall be maintained according to the following provisions: Except for materials pertaining to work performance or such other matters that may be cause for discipline, suspension, or dismissal under laws of this state, no derogatory materials relating to an employee's conduct, service, character, or personality shall be placed in the personnel file of such employee. Materials relating to work performance, discipline, suspension, or dismissal must be reduced to writing and signed by a person competent to know the facts or make the judgment. No such materials may be placed in a personnel file, unless they have been reduced to writing within 45 calendar days, exclusive of the summer vacation period, of the school system's administration becoming aware of the facts reflected in the materials. The employee shall have the right to answer any material filed hereafter in his/her personnel file and the answer, if submitted, shall be attached to the file copy. No anonymous letter or material shall be placed in an employee's personnel file. The validity of items of a derogatory nature placed in an employee's personnel file shall be subject to the grievance procedure. There shall be no statements placed in an employee's personnel file unless the employee has been given a copy. Upon request, the employee, or any person designated in writing by the employee, shall be permitted to examine the personnel file. The employee shall be permitted, conveniently, to reproduce any materials in the file, at a cost no greater tha[n] five cents per page. Such request should be made to the custodian of a personnel file, who shall permit examination of the records at reasonable times, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision of the custodian of the record. The custodian of the record shall maintain a record in the file of those persons reviewing the file each time it is reviewed. "Personnel [i]nvestigations" are the subject of Section 7 of Article XI, which provides as follows: The Board shall take steps to ascertain the identity of the complainant, prior to authorization of an investigation. No investigation of an allegation against an employee shall be made on the basis of an anonymous complaint. In the event of allegations and/or complaints being made against any employee, an investigation which may result in information being placed in the employee's personnel file shall not be concluded by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Police (MDCPSP) or any person prior to the time that the employee receives identification of the complainant and the nature of the complaint. In all Board investigations which may lead to suspension or dismissal of an employee, only the Superintendent or his/her designee may authorize such an investigation. When a formal investigation has been authorized, all personnel involved will be advised by the MDCPSP investigator of their legal rights, and the procedures available to them for representation. Information that is not substantiated will not be used for disciplinary action against the employee. In all Board investigations resulting in discipline, the employee shall be provided with a copy of the report. With the permission of the employee, the Union shall also receive a copy. When investigatory reports are provided, said reports shall be transmitted within a timeframe consistent and harmonious with basic due process. In all cases in which the preliminary investigation is concluded, with the finding that there is no probable cause to proceed further and no disciplinary action taken or charges filed, a statement to that effect signed by the responsible investigation official shall be attached to the complaint and the complaint and all such materials shall be open, thereafter, to inspection. Where allegations have not been proven against an employee, no reprisal or punitive action shall be taken against an employee. Pertinent School Board Rules As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08 is a "[g]eneral [p]ersonnel [p]olicy [s]tatement" regarding "[v]iolence in the [w]orkplace." It provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but it is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public Schools employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. September 1989 Investigation In September of 1989, Respondent was the subject of an investigation conducted by what was then referred to as the School Board's Special Investigative Unit (S.I.U.). The investigation culminated in an investigative report being issued on September 27, 1989 (in S.I.U. Case No. T1684). The report was written by Detective Sergeant Miriam McNeil-Green and read as follows: Allegation: On Wednesday, 09-13-89, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at Northwest 191 Street and 37 Avenue at 11:50 p.m. for driving with a suspended license, citation #55136-IR. The above allegation was reported to central S.I.U. office on September 14, 1989, by Sergeant Rudolf, Metro-Dade Police shift commander. Mr. Henry Hortsmann, Director, Office of Professional Standards, authorized a records check on September 14, 1989. I [Detective Sergeant McNeil-Green] responded to Metro-Dade headquarters building on September 20, 1989, in reference to the above offense. However, the traffic offense was not on file. I went to the Metro-Dade justice building, traffic division and was given a copy of the printout for the arrest of Steven Spencer Newbold. A copy of the printout is attached to this report. The arraignment date will be set. While at Metro-Dade headquarters building it was discovered that Steven Newbold has a felony and misdemeanor past as follows: On 02-24-88, Steven Newbold was arrested at Northwest 22 Avenue and 90 Street, Miami, Fl. 33142, for (1) No valid drivers license; (2) Driving with license suspended; (3) Grand theft auto; (4) Possession of marijuana (11 grams). On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled guilty to possession of marijuana. Adjudication was withheld and Newbold was placed on probation for one year. On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled nolo contendere to one count of grand theft auto and was placed on one year probation. Certified copies are attached. On May 11, 1988, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at 1461 N. W. 60 Street, apt. #5, Miami, Fl. 33141 for trespassing of structure. On July 14, 1988, Newbold pled guilty and was fined $78.75. Certified copies are attached. Vault information: Steven Spencer Newbold was hired on 03-22-89 as a custodian at Sabal Palm Elementary. On his application for employment, Mr. Newbold stated he had never been arrested. Conclusion: The allegation against Steven S. Newbold is substantiated, [in that] he was arrested on September 13, 1989 for a traffic offense. He also falsified his employment application by stating he had not been arrested. On October 1, 1990, Henry Horstmann, the director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards referred to in the investigative report, authored a memorandum concerning the report for placement in Respondent's personnel file. The memorandum read as follows: SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF INVESTIGATIVE
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether Respondent is entitled to a new professional service contract as a teacher, or whether the Petitioner may appropriately terminate the Respondent's employment by not entering into a new professional service contract with Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Since the 1988-89 school year, Respondent, Gloria Steel, has been employed as a classroom teacher with the Palm Beach County School District. At all times material to this proceeding, she held a professional services contract. From the beginning of her employment with the Palm Beach County School District, through the 1992-93 school year, Respondent appears to have had a rather uneventful and lackluster professional career. Although all of her evaluations during those years rated her as satisfactory, her supervisors were of the opinion that, in general, she was a weak teacher who needed to improve many aspects of her teaching skills. During the school years from 1988-89 through 1992-93, there does not appear to have been any action by the School District to place Respondent on a teacher assistance plan. When the 1993-94 school year began, a new principal, Ms. Sue Slone, was appointed at Crystal Lakes Elementary School, where Respondent was then teaching. That year, too, appears to have been rather uneventful for the Respondent. She continued to teach second grade, as she had done for several years. For that year Principal Slone gave Respondent a satisfactory annual evaluation. The annual evaluation did not list any areas of concern. During the 1994-95 school year, Respondent was reassigned to teach a third grade class. Respondent experienced some difficulties making the transition from teaching second grade to teaching third grade. At the end of that school year, Respondent received an annual evaluation from Principal Slone that rated her as satisfactory, but, for the first time in Respondent's career with the School District, listed more than one area of concern. As originally issued, Respondent's annual evaluation for 1994-95 listed the following four areas of concern: Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal Demonstrates Knowledge of Subject Matter Also included on Respondent's 1994-95 annual evaluation form were the following comments: Mrs. Steel has had a difficult time transitioning from second to third grade. A professional development plan will be developed for the 1995-96 school year. She has already begun seeking assistance from other staff members. Respondent disagreed with the content of her 1994-95 annual evaluation. Respondent and Ms. Helene Samango, a Classroom Teacher Association ("CTA") representative, met with Principal Slone to dispute the annual evaluation. During that meeting, Principal Slone agreed, without a formal grievance, that there was insufficient documentation to support the area of concern related to "Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal." Accordingly, Principal Stone revised the evaluation by removing that area of concern from the evaluation. The first observation of Respondent during the 1995-96 school year was on October 11, 1995. On that day, Assistant Principal Heiser observed Respondent's teaching for approximately twenty-five minutes. He was very concerned about what he observed. His concerns included such matters as Respondent's failure to teach anything for twenty-five minutes. Respondent also failed to stop misconduct on several occasions and lost instruction momentum on several occasions. During most of the observation, six or seven students in a class of twenty- five were not engaged. In general, the classroom was chaotic. Following the observation on October 11, 1995, Assistant Principal Heiser discussed the observation with Respondent and advised her of his major concerns. He also discussed the matter with Principal Slone. On October 18, 1995, Principal Slone and Assistant Principal Heiser met with Respondent to discuss their concerns about her teaching deficiencies. They offered Respondent the assistance of a Peer Assistance and Review ("PAR") teacher, a teacher with extensive experience who comes into the classroom and words directly with the teacher who is having difficulty in the classroom.1 As a result of that offer, Respondent was in the PAR program for approximately one year. On October 19, 1995, Respondent was also provided with a School Site Assistance Plan. The plan was designed to address the specific teaching deficiencies that Principal Slone and Assistant Principal Heiser were concerned about. Assistant Principal Heiser conducted an informal observation of Respondent's class for twenty-four minutes on December 1, 1995. Again, he observed deficiencies in Respondent's teaching that concerned him. Following the informal observation, he discussed his observations with Respondent and suggested ways she could improve her teaching. On December 4, 1995, Principal Slone and Assistant Principal Heiser met with Respondent to discuss her teaching. Assistant Principal Heiser discussed his most recent observation of Respondent and described the teaching deficiencies he had observed. At the meeting they also discussed Respondent's progress on the School Site Assistance Plan. Respondent had accomplished some, but not all, of the activities on the plan. Both Mr. Heiser and Ms. Slone emphasized to Respondent that she needed to work over the holidays on her professional reading and she needed to complete all of the activities on the assistance plan. Respondent's mid-year evaluation was prepared on December 7, 1995. Principal Slone identified eight (8) areas of concern, with the documentation for those concerns being provided by the observations of Principal Slone, Assistant Principal Heiser, and Mr. Spence.2 Concerns were in the following areas: (1) management of student conduct, (2) instructional organization and development, (3) presentation of subject matter, (4) communication: verbal and nonverbal, (5) knowledge of subject matter, (6) ability to plan effectively, (7) self control, and (8) adherence to and enforcement of school policies. Principal Slone included the following comments on Respondent's mid-year evaluation form: Mrs. Steel was given a school site assistance plan in October. At our conference 12/4/95, it was evident that she had not done the required activities to assist her in correcting the areas of concern. Many of the same problems that were observed last year continue to date. I believe she needs to address these areas immediately. She particularly needs to do the professional reading requested. My major concern is the misinformation that is given to students during direct teaching. The deficiencies noted on the December 7, 1995, mid- year evaluation were a fair and accurate itemization of deficiencies in Respondent's performance during the period covered by the evaluation. During the period covered by the evaluation, Respondent's teaching performance was repeatedly and consistently unsatisfactory. Due to the continuing deficiencies in Respondent's performance, the School Site Assistance Plan was continued for the next semester. Respondent's participation in the PAR program also continued. During the second semester, Respondent was observed by Principal Slone on January 31, 1996, and by Assistant Principal Heiser on March 28, 1996.3 While there were some improvements in some of Respondent's teaching skills, none of the improvement was significant or consistent. There was improvement in the areas of "Demonstrates Self Control" and "Adheres to and Enforces School Policies," which involve matters other than classroom teaching skills. On March 29, 1996, Principal Slone prepared Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1995-96 school year. The evaluation rated Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. The evaluation identified six areas of concern, all of which had previously been identified as areas of concern on the mid-year evaluation. (The areas of "Demonstrates Self Control" and "Adheres to and Enforces School Policies" were not listed as areas of concern on the annual evaluation on March 29, 1996.) The annual evaluation included the following comments: It is evident that Mrs. Steel has been working to improve her performance, however, at this time, consistency is lacking. In spite of the assistance provided by a PAR teacher as part of a school site Professional Development Plan, Mrs. Steel continues to have difficulty in the areas of concern. It is my expectation that Mrs. Steel continue to strive for acceptable levels of performance. As a result of Respondent's continued teaching deficiencies during the second semester, on February 6, 1996, Principal Slone had written to the Superintendent to request that Respondent be notified that she would be given a year within which to correct the identified deficiencies. In pertinent part, the letter read as follows: On December 7, 1995, I completed a mid- year evaluation of Gloria Steel's performance as a classroom teacher (copy attached). I noted deficiencies in the following areas: Management of Student Conduct Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Communication: verbal and Nonverbal Demonstrates Knowledge of Subject Matter Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively Demonstrates Self Control Adheres to and Enforces School Policies I have discussed my concerns with Ms. Steel and provided her with assistance in correcting these deficiencies. However, these deficiencies still exist. Therefore, I am requesting that you provide notice to Ms. Steel as required by Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, that she will be given the subsequent school year within which to correct these deficiencies. Following receipt of the Principal Slone's letter of February 6, 1996, the Superintendent of Schools, by letter dated March 27, 1996, advised Respondent that she would be given the next school year within which to correct the deficiencies identified by her principal. In pertinent part, the Superintendent's letter read as follows: Please be advised that I have been notified by your principal, Sue Slone, that your current performance as a classroom teacher is unsatisfactory. You have previously been advised of deficiencies by your principal. Pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, this letter is to notify you that you will be given the next school year to correct the deficiencies noted by your principal. You will be placed on a Professional Development Plan as detailed in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). If the deficiencies are not corrected during the prescribed time period, a change in your employment status may be recommended. If you have any questions concerning the procedures involved in this situation, please contact, Dr. Walter H. Pierce, Assistant Superintendent/Division of Personnel Services. Shortly thereafter, School District personnel began providing district level assistance to Respondent. During the summer months, June through August, Respondent was required to read and complete various professional materials and to attend summer inservice. By letter dated April 17, 1996, Respondent wrote to Dr. Walter H. Pierce and requested a transfer for the 1996-97 school year. The letter did not state any reason for the requested transfer. By letter dated July 9, 1996, Dr. Pierce advised Respondent that her request for transfer had been considered pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e)1, Florida Statutes, and that the request for transfer was denied. The union representative Ms. Helene Samango made at least two further requests to Dr. Pierce that he grant the requested transfer. Ms. Samango asserted that there was a personality conflict between Principal Slone and Respondent which would make it unlikely or impossible for Respondent to receive a fair evaluation from Principal Slone. On each occasion that Ms. Samango raised the issue of Respondent's request for a transfer to another school, Dr. Pierce denied the request for a transfer. Dr. Pierce was not convinced that there was any personality conflict between Principal Sloan and Respondent that would prevent Respondent from receiving fair evaluations. Dr. Pierce believed that the 231 Professional Development Plan was fair and objective, and that it could be appropriately implemented without transferring Respondent to another school. Also, as a matter of policy, Dr. Pierce preferred not to transfer teachers who were having performance difficulties. Principal Slone's evaluations of Respondent's performance as a teacher were based solely on Principal Slone's professional evaluation of what she saw and what was reported to her by other administrators who observed Respondent's teaching performance. Principal Slone's evaluations of Respondent were not motivated by any inappropriate personal considerations. Most of the observations of Respondent's teaching performance were done by observers who used the FPMS summative observation instrument. That instrument is an accepted and appropriate instrument of observing and evaluating teacher performance in the classroom. Specifically, it was an appropriate instrument for use in the observations of Respondent's performance in the classroom.4 Dr. Barbara Jeanne Burdsall is employed by the School Board as the Manager of Professional Standards. Dr. Burdsall is responsible for developing, monitoring, and providing remediation for the evaluation systems for teachers. Dr. Burdsall's department receives copies of all mid-year and annual evaluations. They are reviewed by Dr. Burdsall to determine whether a teacher needs assistance and, if so, whether a School Site plan or a District plan should be initiated. School Site plans are initiated for teachers with fewer than five concerns. District plans are initiated for teachers with five or more concerns. Dr. Burdsall was responsible for implementation of Respondent's 231 Professional Development Plan. As was her right, Respondent requested a meeting for an informal review of the documentation of unsatisfactory performance. Dr. Burdsall conducted that meeting on June 4, 1996. The purpose of the meeting was to review the deficiencies and the documentation of the deficiencies for adequacy. Helen Samango, the CTA Representative, was present at the meeting. No questions were raised about the sufficiency of the documentation. The Palm Beach School Board has the following plans and procedures to assist teachers who have performance deficiencies: the School Site Plan, which deals with just the school site principal and the teacher, the Peer Assistance and Review Program, which trains master teachers to assist teachers who are having difficulties in the classroom, and the 231.36 Professional Development Plan, which follows the statutory provisions of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. The Department of Education approved the School Board's 231 Professional Development Plan. Dr. Burdsall is of the professional opinion that the School Board of Palm Beach County Teacher Evaluation System complies with all of the requirements of Sections 231.29, and 231.36, Florida Statutes.5 Dr. Burdsall established a team to implement the Respondent's 231 Professional Development Plan. The team included Dr. Burdsall, a curriculum person, an outside university professor, other district experts, and the school site administrators. The team members could use the FPMS summative observation format or they could prepare narrative reports of their observations. Each observation by a team member was required to last at least twenty minutes. Each observer was also required to follow the requirements of the collective bargaining contract. The team included experts in various aspects of teaching, teacher observation, teacher evaluation, and teacher training. All of the team members provided, or attempted to provide, assistance to the Respondent during the 1996-97 school year. Dr. Burdsall provided Respondent with a summer remediation program and strategies, a list of all of the seminars available in Respondent's areas of concern, and a copy of the portion of the 231 Professional Development Plan, which would be implemented in the fall. Among other things, that portion of the plan identified the observers who would be working with Respondent. The portion of Respondent's 231 Professional Development Plan for August through December of 1996 consisted of workshops, seminars, professional observations with feedback and strategies for improvement, school site administrator assistance, and a mutually agreed-to colleague to work with Respondent in the classroom. After the summer months' activities, Dr. Burdsall held a September 3, 1996, meeting with Respondent, Principal Slone, Assistant Principal Heiser, and CTA Representative Helene Samango. Respondent expressed enthusiasm about the new school year. She had completed her work over the summer, was continuing with her PAR teacher, and wanted to attend some full- day workshops. Respondent was notified as to when the observers would be visiting her classroom. Respondent was advised that if she wanted to observe instruction within the school or elsewhere in the district, Ms. Samango would contact Ms. Burdsall, and the District office would provide the funds. Respondent asked to work with Ms. Carla Lehrma and Ms. Gwen Simpson, both of whom were third-grade teachers at Crystal Lakes Elementary School. Throughout Respondent's 231 Professional Development Plan she had access to as much peer assistance and modeling as she felt she needed. The peer assistance was in addition to the year of assistance by the PAR teacher. Respondent's mid-year evaluation was completed on December 6, 1996, and was based on six (6) observations. On that evaluation, Respondent was rated as unsatisfactory with six identified areas of concern. Respondent was continued on the 231 Professional Development Plan. A meeting was held with Respondent regarding the plan on December 17, 1996. During both semesters of the 1996-97 school year, Respondent was observed by Principal Slone and by other professional observers. The other professional observers who observed Respondent's classroom teaching were Ms. Sandra Gero, Assistant Principal Larry Heiser, Ms. Kathleen Gustafson, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall, Ms. Barbara Clark, and Dr. Mary Gray. All of the observers documented the same areas of concern that Principal Slone observed. There was a lack of subject matter being presented; a lack of instructional organization and development; and a lack of classroom management. The students were not on task and the choice of instruction was not appropriate. Respondent was not demonstrating knowledge of the subject matter or an ability to plan effectively. By way of example, Dr. Mary B. Gray observed Respondent on October 8, 1996, and on February 12, 1997. Dr. Gray is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Florida Atlantic University, and has been in that position for eighteen years. In that position, Dr. Gray teaches personnel development and leadership courses. She also teaches supervision of instruction. These are all preparatory courses for school administrators. During her observation on October 8, 1996, Dr. Gray was in the classroom for the full fifty-five minute period. There were twenty-nine students present, and during Dr. Gray's scan of the classroom, about a third of the students were not doing anything they were supposed to be doing. During the period Respondent did not state what the objective was for the lesson. She lost momentum and told the students to put their heads down because she said she was not happy with them. A clock was used that was not related to the lesson. There was no objective stated. The children were confused about what was going on. Some of respondent's efforts at classroom control were ineffective. There was no meaningful content taught during the period. On February 12, 1997, Dr. Gray observed Respondent's teaching for thirty-two minutes. There were twenty-seven students present. Dr. Gray observed a mathematics class. Respondent started eight minutes late. Again the pacing was slow. Dr. Gray observed the same pattern of teacher behavior that she had observed before. Multiple questions were a problem in both observations. Respondent accepted some incorrect answers from students without providing the correct answers. There continued to be a serious problem with the off-task behavior. Respondent's teaching was not improving to any significant degree. Based on her two observations of Respondent, Dr. Gray was of the professional opinion that Respondent was not a competent teacher. Ms. Sandra Gero observed Respondent on September 25, 1996, and on January 13, 1997. Ms. Gero is an Area 2 Instructional Support Team Member. In her position she supports the schools in any way necessary in matters concerning instruction and personnel issues. Ms. Gero is involved in observations of teachers on 231 Professional Development Plans. On September 25, 1996, Ms. Gero observed Respondent's classroom for 55 minutes. Ms. Gero observed a language arts lesson, because this is her area of expertise. The children were doing a handwriting assignment, printing upper and lower case letters. This activity was developmentally inappropriate for third grade. Ms. Gero did not see anything of instructional significance to the activity. As the students moved into a reading activity Ms. Gero observed that negative behavior was being reinforced. Ms. Gero observed Respondent's use of ineffective instructional strategies. At 9:30 a.m. five students were off-task. By 9:45 a.m. there were eight students off-task. Ms. Gero observed serious problems with student management and the lack of a classroom management plan. There was no direct teaching. At the conclusion of the observation, Ms. Gero made some suggestions to Respondent that would, hopefully, help her improve her teaching. Ms. Gero's second observation lasted an hour and a half. Ms. Gero observed disjointed chaos in the classroom. The children's disruptive behavior was controlling the entire classroom. By 8:20 a.m. there had been no meaningful instruction. From about 8:30 a.m. until about 9:00 a.m. Respondent was at her desk looking through papers. During this second observation there was a worse classroom situation than during the first observation. There was no direct teaching during the ninety minutes of her observation. The six deficiency areas were still present. In Ms. Gero's independent professional opinion, Respondent is not a competent teacher. Assistant Principal Heiser observed Respondent's class on October 2, 1996. Instructional organization was becoming a major issue. There was still no presentation of subject matter and the deficiencies previously identified were still observed to be present. Dr. Burdsall observed the Respondent's classroom teaching on December 2, 1996. The observation reflected that there was no teaching of subject matter, and there was a lack of management of student conduct. Dr. Burdsall's observation directly reflected the deficiencies previously documented by Principal Slone. There was no meaningful teaching going on during the observation. Dr. Burdsall observed Respondent's classroom teaching again on February 20, 1997. Again there was no meaningful instruction taking place. It was very chaotic. Dr. Burdsall was able to form an independent opinion as to Respondent's competency. That opinion was that Respondent is incompetent to teach. Ms. Barbara Clark observed Respondent on November 8, 1996, and on February 26, 1997. Ms. Clark is a program planner for the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida. She has been with the School District for almost twenty (20) years. Her responsibilities include creating or facilitating the writing of curriculum, preparing materials for teachers, and providing inservice to teachers. Both of Ms. Clark's observations of Respondent lasted for approximately an hour and a half. Ms. Clark met with Respondent after the observations and provided feedback to her regarding the observations. Ms. Clark invited Respondent to call her if she could be of any further assistance. Ms. Clark's independent professional opinion, based on her observations and past professional training and experience, was that Respondent is not an effective teacher. Ms. Clark observed some improvement in Respondent's teaching at the second observation, but the improvement was not sufficient to be effective. During the course of the implementation of Respondent's 231 Plan, Dr. Burdsall, the Principal, the Assistant Principal, the Union Representative, and the Respondent met periodically to discuss the observations, the progress of the Respondent's work, any areas that needed clarification, and to see if there was any further assistance that could be offered. Respondent was also provided with a math aide, Herbert Cohen. Dr. Burdsall, the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and the Union Representative, met with Respondent on November 26, 1996. At the meeting they discussed the continuing need to tie activities to objectives and to the theme. Respondent had attended several seminars and workshops. They also reviewed the observations completed by Ms. Clark and Ms. Gustafson, addressed the issues of centers and cooperative learning in Respondent's classroom, discussed the mistakes that were being made by Respondent with respect to spelling, and gave Respondent some strategies to help her focus her teaching. Assistant Principal Heiser did not see any improvement in Respondent's teaching; the same problems continued to exist. Dr. Burdsall met with the Principal, the Union Representative, and the Respondent on February 28, 1997, to again assess the status of Respondent's progress on the plan and to determine what additional assistance was needed. The original concerns were still present. On March 12, 1997, Assistant Principal Heiser and Principal Slone completed an Annual Evaluation for Respondent. In completing the annual evaluation, Principal Slone relied on her own observations and on all of the other observations by the members of the professional development team. Respondent continued to have six areas of deficiency, in spite of extensive remediation and assistance. Respondent continued to have a consistent pattern of problems in the six specific areas identified. Because the deficiencies had continued, Principal Slone communicated to the Superintendent that Ms. Slone was not recommending Respondent for reappointment for the 1997-1998 school year. Based on the Principal's evaluation of Respondent and the recommendations the Principal made to the Superintendent, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that she would not be re-appointed, and that she had the right to request a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter its final order denying renewal of Gloria Steel's professional service contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1999.
The Issue Whether Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB") had just cause to suspend and recommend the termination of Respondent, Carla McCray's ("McCray" or "Respondent"), employment for the reasons set forth in the agency action letter dated December 20, 2018.
Findings Of Fact MDCSB is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, McCray was employed by MDCSB as a school security monitor at MSHS, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and served in that capacity since 1998. Respondent's employment with MDCSB is governed by Florida law, MDCSB's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between MDCSB and the United Teachers of Dade Union. As a school security monitor, McCray's duties included assisting students, assisting with student/staff altercations, protecting the school from intruders, and to generally protect the safety of everyone in the school. The proposed discipline is based upon McCray's repeated refusal to submit for a fitness-for-duty evaluation after repeated instructions to do so. Facts Giving Rise to the Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation Request In March 2018, the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for Miami-Dade County Public School ("MDCPS") received a call from Marian Lambeth, the Chief of the Professional Practices Commission of the Florida Department of Education. She advised OPS that McCray sent the Commission correspondence entitled "Criminal Misconduct Complaints and Willful Violations," which was 322 pages. The lengthy, repetitious, and disjointed correspondence describes a variety of alleged "cyber internet crimes," including inter cyber-bullying, cyber- harassment, and cyber-stalking. The voluminous "complaint" lists alleged infractions dating back for at least ten years. This bizarre document caused OPS and District Director Carmen Molina to be concerned for McCray's well-being and essentially put McCray on the District's "radar." McCray previously made similarly odd computer-related complaints in December 2016 to Assistant Principal Dwight Arscott. She told him people were taking control of computers she was using and logging her out of District computers. Mr. Arscott contacted the MSHS Information Technology Services ("ITS") department and also school police. McCray's complaint was investigated and found to be without any merit. McCray again made similar complaints to Mr. Arscott in January 2017, and this time he referred her to school police because, in McCray's opinion, ITS had not done a sufficient job of investigating the matter. Again, no problem was discovered regarding McCray's district-issued computers or accounts. At the start of the 2018-2019 school year, McCray expressed to Mr. Arscott that she did not feel safe using school email systems and requested that he contact her through her personal Yahoo email address. She expressed that she did not want to use the District email because she was being cyber-bullied and harassed and did not feel safe using it. As a result she was experiencing "distress." McCray memorialized her concerns in emails she sent to Mr. Arscott and other MSHS administrators beginning in August 2018. In one such email, Respondent stated that she was experiencing "overwhelming of emotional, psychological and spiritual distressed." She also stated, "I wasn't feeling in the best of wellness, for the same aforementioned reasons." She also requested a meeting with Mr. Arscott after her "wellness recovery." Mr. Arscott accommodated Respondent and gave her some time off. At the meeting she requested a personnel investigation, and Mr. Arscott explained to her that that process did not apply to her computer-related complaints. The emails from McCray caused Mr. Arscott to worry about Respondent's well-being. Additionally Mr. Arscott was concerned that a security monitor was making these complaints, because security monitors are responsible for protecting the school and alerting administration to potential security issues. MSHS is charged with educating and supervising over 3,000 students. Security monitors are relied upon to be the administration's "eyes and ears" at the school. MSHS Principal Benny Valdes shared the same concerns regarding McCray's communications because her self-described "emotional distress" could affect the safety of everyone at the school, including the students, staff, and McCray. On September 20, 2018, at 6:59 p.m., McCray sent yet another email to Mr. Arscott complaining of harassment, bullying, stalking, discrimination, safety violations, and security violations. She also claimed to be experiencing medical difficulties, including abrupt panic attacks, breathing problems, chest pain, and having to depart work early to immediately seek medical attention. The verbiage of the email is jumbled, disjointed, and nonsensical. Mr. Arscott was concerned, particularly by the alleged "safety concerns," because they were not detailed in the email. When he attempted to speak with McCray about her allegations, she provided no details. Mr. Arscott knew McCray left school a couple times to see doctors and his concerns were growing. In her September 20, 2018, email, McCray copied numerous other public officials and entities having nothing to do with MDCPS, including the Miami-Dade State Attorney, the FBI, Governor Rick Scott, and Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson. On September 21, 2018, at 9:49 p.m., a similar email was sent to Mr. Arscott once again and a similar list of public officials was copied by McCray. In this email McCray requested copies of the documentation pertaining to her computer complaints. Apparently the ones she had been previously provided by Mr. Arscott were not "visually sufficient" for her. On September 24, 2018, at 5:39 a.m., McCray sent another similar email to Mr. Arscott and, once again, copied a seemingly random list of public officials. Then again on September 26, 2018, at 5:40 a.m., McCray sent another similar email to Mr. Arscott, as well as various public officials. Mr. Arscott estimated that there were 30 or more of these repetitious and bizarre emails sent by McCray between September 20 and 26, 2018. At or about the same time one morning, McCray also texted Mr. Arscott with her concerns 46 times between approximately 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Trying to address all of McCray's repetitive requests, sent virtually at all hours of the day and night, took Mr. Arscott away from his other duties at the school. As a result of these communications and their concerns for both Respondent and the school, both Mr. Arscott and Mr. Valdes supported the decision to send Respondent for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Mr. Valdes also stated that he would not be comfortable with Respondent returning to MSHS. The Fitness-for-Duty Process School Board Policy 4161--Fitness for Duty, applies to noninstructional personnel, which includes security monitors. The fitness policy refers to the applicable CBA. Article XXI(F) of the CBA dictates that at the request of administration, an employee can be sent for a psychological or psychiatric examination or test upon a written statement of the need for such an examination. District Director Carmen Molina testified that the District was first alerted of concerns for McCray's well-being when Marian Lambeth called and provided OPS with a copy of McCray's 322-page complaint in March 2018. These concerns were amplified when McCray began sending emails to MSHS administration describing various forms of distress she was experiencing. Much like Mr. Arscott and Mr. Valdes, Ms. Molina was concerned that a security monitor was making these complaints and allegations. Understanding the role of security monitors at a school, she too supported sending McCray for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. As a result of the administration's well-founded concerns, on September 27, 2018, a Conference for the Record ("CFR") was held with McCray and two union representatives concerning sending McCray for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. When McCray arrived for the CFR, Ms. Molina handed her an envelope that contained a written description of why she was being sent for a fitness evaluation. Ms. Molina explained to her both in writing and verbally that she was being sent for the evaluation because of her repeated complaints about cyber- bullying and her claims of emotional, psychological, and spiritual distress. The reasons for the evaluation were also memorialized in the CFR summary Ms. Molina drafted and presented to McCray. At the CFR, McCray wanted the meeting postponed for lack of union representation, yet this claim had no basis because two union representatives were present. McCray asked Ms. Molina what the basis for the fitness determination was and Ms. Molina advised her that it was because of the frequency and the content of the emails she was repeatedly sending. Ms. Molina even presented her with an email dated September 26, 2018, and asked McCray if she sent it. McCray replied that "it looked familiar." During the CFR, Ms. Molina directed McCray to go to the fitness-for-duty evaluation and provided her with a list of clinical evaluators from which to choose three. McCray refused to sign this referral document, as well as the written basis for the fitness determination. It was explained to her that going to the fitness-for-duty evaluation was a condition of her continued employment and that if she refused, it would be considered insubordination. McCray was given until September 28, 2018, to call Ms. Molina with her selected evaluators, but she never made the call. After this meeting, McCray was placed on "alternate assignment" and remained at home with full pay. When McCray did not call Ms. Molina as directed to schedule the fitness evaluation, another CFR was scheduled for October 4, 2018. Ms. Molina testified that McCray was given more than two day's notice for this second CFR and emailed the notice to her preferred Yahoo email account. McCray did not attend this CFR. However, the written summary of this CFR, which once again contained written directives to schedule the fitness-for-duty appointment, was sent to McCray. McCray failed to select her choices of evaluators for the second time and, as a result, a third CFR was held on October 15, 2018. Despite her refusal to participate in the fitness process, McCray continued to send a barrage of bizarre emails. McCray attended this CFR and was once again directed by Ms. Molina to go for a fitness evaluation. This was the third time McCray received these directives in writing and the second time Ms. Molina gave them verbally. During this CFR, McCray was once again presented with a list of doctors to choose from and she again refused to sign it. McCray was also advised that her continued refusal to go for the fitness evaluation was gross insubordination. McCray repeatedly said, "I heard you" when Ms. Molina spoke to her. In early November 2018, there was a fourth CFR held with McCray that she attended and was once again given a chance to participate in the fitness process. Again, she refused. On November 29, 2018, McCray was given a fifth and final opportunity to participate in the fitness-for-duty process at her meeting prior to board action. It was explained to her by Ms. Molina, Ms. Molina's supervisor, Dr. Jimmie Brown, and then Associate Superintendent Joyce Castro that she would have to go for the fitness evaluation or be terminated. McCray still refused to go. McCray was also presented with an entire copy of her disciplinary file by Ms. Molina. On December 18, 2018, McCray was emailed and sent via certified mail a letter that informed her that her termination was going to be recommended at the December 19, 2018, MDCSB meeting. On December 20, 2018, McCray was emailed and sent via certified mail a letter that informed her that MDCSB had taken action to terminate her employment. McCray's Arguments McCray argues that termination is inappropriate because she did not receive sufficient advanced notice of the first CFR, as required by the CBA, and she was not given a valid reason for the need for the fitness-for-duty evaluation. McCray also argues that MDCSB's failure to provide a Notice of Specific Charges prior to her termination deprived her of due process. Notice of the First CFR Article XXI, Section 1, A(3) of the CBA governing the terms of McCray's employment provides that, "Employees shall be given two days' notice and a statement of the reason for the conference, except in cases deemed to be an emergency." MDCSB alleges that the September 27, 2018, CFR was an emergency justifying the lack of advance notice. McCray contends that there was no emergency because MDCSB became concerned about McCray's mental health after receiving her 322-page complaint letter in March 2018. Although the March 2018 complaint raised concerns regarding McCray's well-being and mental stability, it was her ongoing and ever-increasing barrage of bizarre, and often incomprehensible, emails to numerous individuals in which she expressed concerns about her own safety and stability that escalated the situation to an emergency. Despite the lack of advanced notice, McCray had two union representatives present at this first meeting to assist her with the process. Accordingly, MDCSB was justified in calling the initial emergency CFR without two days' advance notice. Reason for the Evaluation Request Contrary to McCray's assertion that she was asked to submit to a psychological evaluation based solely upon "too many emails," MDCSB repeatedly explained verbally and in writing to McCray that it needed the evaluation based on the volume and content of those emails. In the emails, McCray complained of unspecified harassment, bullying, stalking, discrimination, unspecified safety violations, and security violations that she claimed were causing her abrupt panic attacks, breathing problems, chest pain, and causing her to seek medical assistance. At each CFR and in the CFR summaries, McCray was advised that MDCSB wanted her to participate in a fitness-for- duty examination because of her own complaints of school-related "emotional, psychological, and spiritual" distress. Notice of Specific Charges McCray points out that she was not provided with a Notice of Specific Charges until February 18, 2019, only 11 days prior to the final hearing and approximately two months after MDCSB's termination recommendation. Due process required that McCray be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to suspension or termination and the right to a post-termination evidentiary hearing. Prior to termination, McCray was given five notices of CFRs and at least three CFR summaries explaining the need for her to participate in a fitness-for-duty evaluation, and that failure to do so was a violation of MDCSB policy and insubordination. McCray was also notified on December 18, 2018, by email and in writing, that MDCSB intended to recommend her suspension without pay and dismissal for just cause, "including but not limited to: gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Policies 4161, Fitness for Duty, 4210, Standards of Ethical conduct, and 4210, Code of Ethics." Despite being provided multiple opportunities prior to termination to explain her basis for fearing for her safety and refusal to attend a fitness-for–duty evaluation, McCray refused to do so. After the MDCSB meeting on December 19, 2018, at which McCray was recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal, she was provided notification of the action by letter dated December 20, 2018, which mirrored the basis for discipline contained in the December 18, 2018, letter. This notification also provided her with notice of how to contest the proposed action. MDCSB policies do not specify a time frame within which a Notice of Specific Charges must be issued for non- instructional employees. At no time prior to the issuance of the Notice of Specific Charges did McCray request any further explanation. There is no record of any pre-hearing discovery request by McCray regarding the specific factual or legal basis for the termination. It should be noted that the Notice of Specific Charges identifies violations of MDCSB Policy 4161— "Fitness for Duty" and "Gross Insubordination"--the same reasons for proposed discipline identified prior to the MDCSB action of December 19, 2018. McCray was provided a full evidentiary hearing at the final hearing of this matter. McCray received all pre and post-termination due process to which she was entitled.
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 finding Carla McCray guilty of misconduct in office and gross insubordination and upholding her termination from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2019, 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 3rd day of June, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Catherine A. Riggins, Esquire 18520 Northwest 67th Avenue, Suite 105 Miami, Florida 33015 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her age, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for reporting the alleged age discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Hilty was hired by Lee County in March 2002 as a human resources specialist, which was a temporary position. She was 25 years old at the time of her employment. Ms. Hilty received a bachelor's degree in human resource management in May 2000. From October 2000 to December 2001, Ms. Hilty was employed as a recruiting coordinator for a private firm in Indiana. While in college, she worked for 16 months as a human resources assistant for a condominium. Approximately six months after Ms. Hilty was hired as a human resources specialist, she was hired in a permanent position as a human resources analyst. She remained in this position until July 2003, when she was promoted to a staffing coordinator at a salary of $47,000 per year, which was a 29.8635 percent increase in pay. Prior to Ms. Hilty being hired as a staffing coordinator, the staffing area had been supervised by managers rather than staffing coordinators. Lauren Roberson had been hired as a manager to supervise the staffing area with a beginning salary of approximately $60,000. Before Ms. Roberson's employment, Kathy Dorsey had been hired as a manager to supervise the staffing area with a beginning salary of approximately $50,000. George Williams was appointed Lee County's human resources director in January 2001. Mr. Williams made the decision to terminate Ms. Roberson as the staffing manager. He regraded and reclassified the staffing manager position to that of wellness coordinator and created a new position as staffing coordinator. Mr. Williams promoted Ms. Hilty to the new position. Her duties included being responsible for the hiring processes for Lee County and supervising the staffing team. She supervised two employees. In December 2003, Mr. Williams resigned his position with Lee County. From December 2003 to September 2004, the Human Resources Department was supervised on an interim basis by William Hammond, who was the deputy county manager for Lee County. In September 2004, Dinah Lewis was hired by Lee County as the human resources director. Ms. Lewis was hired to make changes and correct problems that the Human Resources Department was having in responding to the community and various departments within Lee County, in putting together information that departments needed such as budget information, and in dealing with relationships with the staff. In the words of Mr. Hammond, "we decided that we were going to find a true professional, somebody that we really didn't care if our staff downstairs loved them, like [sic] them, but we wanted somebody that we could count on to be fair and honest, up front, but also make some changes." When Ms. Lewis became employed by Lee County, she asked the managers and coordinators in the Human Resources Department to provide her with their resumes and memoranda outlining the projects and issues on which they were working. In September 2004, Ms. Lewis met with each of the managers and coordinators, including Ms. Hilty, who reported directly to Ms. Lewis. During Ms. Hilty's meeting with Ms. Lewis in September 2004, Ms. Hilty asked Ms. Lewis to upgrade her position and increase her salary. Ms. Hilty did not indicate to Ms. Lewis that she felt that she was being discriminated based on her age. Ms. Lewis told Ms. Hilty that it was too early for her to be making changes in Ms. Hilty's position. Ms. Lewis also noted that Ms. Hilty did not have a lot of experience in management. By October 2004, Ms. Lewis saw the need to reduce the number of staff reporting directly to her. Ms. Lewis met with Ms. Hilty in October 2004, at which time Ms. Lewis increased Ms. Hilty's responsibilities to include supervising the compensation area, which had been under Ms. Lewis' direct supervision. Ms. Hilty told Ms. Lewis that she did not want the additional duties of the compensation unit because she knew very little about compensation, and the two employees in the compensation unit were difficult to supervise. Ms. Lewis assured Ms. Hilty that she would work closely with Ms. Hilty and that Ms. Hilty could learn about compensation with her assistance. Ms. Hilty again asked that her position be classified as a manager and that her compensation be increased because of the increased duties. Ms. Lewis denied her request. Ms. Hilty did not mention that she felt that she was being discriminated against because of her age. At the time Ms. Lewis placed the compensation area under Ms. Hilty's supervision, two managers were supervising other areas in the human resources department. Jim Palopoli, who was approximately 60 years old, was the Human Resource Information Systems and Records (HRIS) manager, and Charlotte Veaux, who is over 60 years old, was the human resources manager who oversaw the benefits section. Mr. Palopoli was hired in 2002 by Lee County as a manager with a starting salary of approximately $60,000. Prior to his employment with Lee County, Mr. Palopoli had over 18 years of managerial experience and had taken some college courses. As a manager with Lee County, Mr. Palopoli supervised five employees. Ms. Veaux was hired by Lee County in 1995 as a human resources analyst II. She moved up the ranks and was promoted to benefits manager in 1999. She has a bachelor's degree in business administration and had ten years of managerial experience prior to her employment with Lee County. Ms. Veaux's salary was in the high $60,000 to low $70,000 range. Ms. Veaux was supervising approximately six to eight employees. In October 2004, Ms. Lewis moved another employee to Ms. Veaux's section, but Ms. Veaux did not receive any additional compensation for the added duty. The human resources manager position required the following education, experience, and licensing: This position requires any combination of education, and experience equivalent to: graduation from an accredited four year university or college with a Bachelors degree in Human Resources, Business Administration, Public Administration, or related field. Three years of experience in Human Resources, Public Administration, or related field. Possession of a valid Florida Class "E" drivers license with an acceptable driving record is required. The duties of the staff coordinator and the human managers were similar. It is clear from the position descriptions that the human resources manager was a position in which the incumbent would be expected to "exercise considerable independent judgement [sic] and decision making." The position of staffing coordinator required more supervision from the human resources director than the human resources managers. Both Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli had considerably more supervisory experience than Ms. Hilty and did not require as much supervision as Ms. Hilty. Ms. Hilty's inexperience resulted in some poor management decisions as set forth below. As staffing coordinator, Ms. Hilty was a member of the Human Resources Management Team (Management Team), which included Ms. Lewis, Mr. Palopoli, and Ms. Veaux.1 In the spring of 2005, the Management Team made a decision to enforce a dress code in the Human Resources Department. The code would require the staff to dress in a professional manner. After the decision was made concerning the dress code and before the date of implementation of the dress code, Ms. Hilty wore jeans to work. Ms. Lewis confronted Ms. Hilty about wearing the jeans, feeling that it showed that Ms. Hilty was not supporting the management decision for the dress code. Ms. Hilty felt that she could wear the jeans because the date for the implementation of the dress code had not begun. Because Ms. Hilty was a supervisor and a member of the Management Team, her wearing of casual attire could reasonably be construed by Ms. Lewis as showing lack of support for the management decision. In the spring of 2005, the Management Team made a collective decision to require the employees of the human resources department to adhere to an 8 a.m.-to-5 p.m. work schedule rather than use a staggered work schedule, which had been the practice of the department. Ms. Hilty was not in support of the decision at the time it was made; however, she required her staff to adhere to the policy. One of the employees supervised by Ms. Hilty was not happy with the decision and asked to be heard on the issue with the deputy county manager. A meeting was scheduled with Ms. Hilty, the disgruntled employee, Ms. Lewis, and Mr. Hammond to discuss the matter. During the meeting, Mr. Hammond asked Ms. Hilty what she would do if she were the human resources director, and she replied that she believed in flexibility and working with the employees as long as there was adequate staff coverage. Ms. Lewis viewed Ms. Hilty's response as another failure by Ms. Hilty to support a Management Team decision. One of the responsibilities of the Management Team is to determine which employees' requests to attend conferences would be approved. In determining whether a request should be approved, the Management Team considers the value of the seminar, the number of conferences the employee has attended, and the work load. In the summer of 2005, Ms. Hilty requested approval to attend an annual conference of a software vendor in September. The Management Team denied Ms. Hilty's request. Ms. Hilty had attended the conference the previous year, and there were two major projects that were due to be completed by Ms. Hilty's unit in September. Ms. Hilty asked Ms. Lewis to revisit the request to attend the conference, which had been denied by the Management Team. The request was brought before the Management Team for a second time, and, again, the Management Team denied her request. Ms. Hilty asked Ms. Lewis to again revisit the request, but Ms. Lewis declined to do so and did not take it back to the Management Team. On September 1, 2005, Ms. Lewis received a telephone call from Scott Letourneau, the president of NEOGOV, the software company sponsoring the conference which Ms. Hilty had requested to attend. Mr. Letourneau, unaware that Ms. Hilty's request to attend the conference had not been approved, was encouraging Ms. Lewis to allow Ms. Hilty to attend the conference. Mr. Letourneau had spoken to Ms. Hilty earlier in the day, but she had not advised him that she would not be attending. However, Ms. Hilty had advised someone on Mr. Letourneau's staff that she was not going to attend, but the message had not been communicated to Mr. Letourneau. A short while after the telephone conversation with Mr. Letourneau, Ms. Lewis confronted Ms. Hilty about the telephone call. Ms. Hilty advised Ms. Lewis that she did not know that Mr. Letourneau was going to call Ms. Lewis and that she had not asked him to call Ms. Lewis. Later the same day, Ms. Lewis received an e-mail from Mr. Letourneau stating that there had been a miscommunication with his staff and that when he called Ms. Lewis he did not know that Ms. Hilty had advised his staff that she would not be going to the conference. In his e-mail, Mr. Latourneau set forth a timeline of events concerning the conference. Among the events listed was a discussion between Mr. Latourneau and Ms. Hilty in June that Lee County would probably not be sending anyone to the conference. The timeline also indicated that during June and July Mr. Latourneau and Ms. Hilty had discussions about items that Ms. Hilty could present at the conference. It is clear from the timeline submitted by Mr. Latourneau that Ms. Hilty continued to discuss her attendance and participation at the conference after Ms. Hilty had been informed by the Management Team that she would not be allowed to attend the conference. Ms. Lewis scheduled a meeting with Ms. Hilty to be held on September 5, 2005, to discuss the conference situation. Ms. Lewis asked Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli to also attend the meeting as witnesses. It was not unusual to ask managers to attend such meetings as witnesses, and Ms. Veaux considered that as part of her job responsibilities. There is no Lee County policy that would prohibit Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli from attending the meeting as witnesses. At the appointed time for the meeting, Ms. Hilty came to the doorway of the conference room where the meeting was to be held. Ms. Lewis asked Ms. Hilty to come inside the conference room, but Ms. Hilty refused because Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli were present. Mr. Palopoli asked Ms. Hilty to come into the conference room and close the door because the conversation was beginning to get loud and could be heard by nearby employees. Ms. Hilty again refused to enter the conference room. Ms. Lewis again asked Ms. Hilty to come into the room, and Ms. Hilty again refused to do so and walked away. Later the same day, Ms. Lewis prepared a notice of proposed corrective action and delivered it to Ms. Hilty in the presence of Ms. Veaux. The proposed corrective action was a two-day suspension for Ms. Hilty's failure to meet with Ms. Lewis as directed. Two days later, Ms. Lewis met with Ms. Hilty to discuss the proposed corrective action. Ms. Lewis made the decision to suspend Ms. Hilty for two days without pay, and Ms. Hilty was given a copy of the Corrective Action Notice, imposing the two-day suspension. Ms. Hilty requested a meeting with Mr. Hammond, Ms. Lewis' supervisor, to discuss Ms. Lewis' imposition of the suspension. Mr. Hammond did not give Ms. Hilty any relief. Ms. Hilty filed a grievance concerning the suspension, and the grievance committee upheld the suspension. On September 22, 2005, Ms. Lewis met with Ms. Hilty to discuss performance issues. The issues discussed were Ms. Hilty's criticism of the Management Team's decision regarding the work schedule; Ms. Hilty's discussions with the conference vendor about the possibility of attending the conference after she had been told by the Management Team that she could not attend the conference; Ms. Hilty's failure to meet with the Management Team on September 6, 2005; and the poor work product by the compensation unit, which Ms. Hilty supervised. Based on these shortcomings, Ms. Lewis demoted Ms. Hilty to an analyst position and reduced her salary by 29.8635 percent. Ms. Hilty was sent formal notice of the demotion by memorandum dated September 23, 2005. Ms. Hilty was depressed and went on family medical leave after her meeting with Ms. Lewis and never returned to work. She resigned effective October 18, 2005, and went to work for NEOGOV. Lee County was a client of NEOGOV. After Ms. Hilty went to work for NEOGOV, Ms. Lewis was concerned about having to deal with Ms. Hilty at NEOGOV because of the animosity Ms. Hilty felt for Lee County. Ms. Lewis called Mr. Letourneau and expressed her concerns. He assured her that Ms. Hilty would not be dealing with the Lee County account. In May 2006, Ms. Lewis and a number of other employees of Lee County received an e-mail from Ms. Hilty requesting them to respond to a survey. By this time, Ms. Hilty had filed a claim of discrimination against Lee County with the Human Relations Commission. Ms. Lewis called Mr. Latourneau and reminded him that previously he had agreed that Ms. Hilty would not be involved with Lee County's work. She told Mr. Latourneau that Ms. Hilty had filed a claim of discrimination against Lee County and that there was friction between Ms. Hilty and Lee County. She sent Mr. Latourneau a copy of the discrimination complaint. The first mention by Ms. Hilty that she had been discriminated against based on her age was in her conversation with Ms. Lewis on September 22, 2005. Although Ms. Hilty argues in her Proposed Recommended Order that Ms. Hilty raised the argument of discrimination in her response to the suspension dated September 13, 2005, in the response, she stated: "I feel that I am being discriminated and retaliated against," but she did not state that she was being discriminated against based on her age. On September 2, 2005, Ms. Hilty sent an e-mail to Ms. Lewis stating: "I feel I'm being targeted against because you want me to leave this department and you think I'm being insubordinate because I'm not a 'yes person' and I'm not intimidated by your style of management." Ms. Hilty first raised her claim of age discrimination when Ms. Lewis advised Ms. Hilty that she was going to demote Ms. Hilty. The tension between Ms. Hilty and Ms. Lewis was not because of Ms. Hilty's age, it was because Ms. Hilty had exercised poor judgment in her responses to management decisions, such as the dress code, the work schedule, and the conference. It was reasonable for Ms. Lewis to conclude that Ms. Hilty was not a team player and was attempting to undermine Ms. Lewis' authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Lee County did not discriminate against Ms. Hilty based on age and did not retaliate against Ms. Hilty for filing a discrimination charge and dismissing her petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, an employee of Respondent in its Miami District Office. Petitioner began her employment with Respondent on September 18, 1974, in the position of Secretary During her employment, she was promoted to Secretary II and then to Secretary III. The position of Secretary III was subsequently reclassified to the position of Secretary Specialist. Petitioner's immediate supervisor since 1982 was Dr. Arnold Cortazzo, Respondent's District Program Administrator. At the time of the alleged event of discrimination, Petitioner was employed as a Secretary Specialist and was under the immediate supervision of Dr. Cortazzo. On January 30, 1987, Respondent published a Job Opportunity Announcement for the position of Staff Assistant in the Miami District Office. Dr. Cortazzo prepared the Position Description which included the following descriptions of duties and responsibilities, and the respective percentages of time for each: 15% - Conducts client satisfaction surveys and reports on results to Program Manager. 15% - Conducts follow-up studies on Vocational Rehabilitation clients, compiles and analyzes results, and submits findings to Program Manager. 10% - Performs special assignments for Program Manager such as monitoring the action plans, surveys, and requests for information. 15% - Coordinates the work flow of the District XI Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Office. 05% - Orders forms and supplies of the District Program Office. 10% - Checks for accuracy monthly attendance and leave reports for District Program Office. Also keeps record of accumulative leave earned and used. Distributes monthly leave report to district offices. 25% - Acts as liaison to Support Staff Council, assists the training coordinator in training support and clerical staff. 05% - Other related duties as required. The Position Description for the Staff Assistant position set forth the following as being the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform the job: Knowledge of office procedures and practices. Knowledge of the principles and techniques of effective verbal and written communication. Knowledge of the methods of data collection. Knowledge of basic arithmetic. Ability to understand and apply applicable rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. Ability to deal with the public in a tactful and courteous manner. Ability to perform basic arithmetical calculations. Ability to work independently. Ability to utilize problem solving techniques. Ability to plan, organize, and coordinate work assignments. Ability to communicate effectively verbally and in writing. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with others. The Position Description for the Secretary Specialist position held by Petitioner in 1987 contained the following duties and responsibilities and the percentage of time for each: 35% - Transcribes dictation from dictating equipment or rough drafts from Program Manager. Types documents for Program Manager. 12% - Receives and reads incoming mail for Program Manager, screens items which can be handled personally, and forwards the rest to Program Manager. Screens Program Manager's incoming calls. 05% - Maintains calendar tickler file for Program Manager on important correspondence and documents, follows up on work in process to insure timely reply or action. 03% - Acts as office receptionist in the absence of other secretarial/clerical staff. 35% - Assembles and summarizes information upon request of Program Manager from files and documents in the office or other available sources. 05% - Composes and signs routine correspondence of a nontechnical nature from verbal instructions of Program Manager. 02% - Keeps Program Manager's calendar by scheduling appointments and conferences with or without prior clearance. 03% - Files Program Manager's correspondence and other materials and maintains the Program Manager's file. The following were listed as the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the Secretary Specialist position: Knowledge of the techniques for handling telephone calls in a courteous and efficient manner. Skill in typing. Ability to transcribe dictation using notes or a dictating machine. Ability to organize files and other records. Ability to perform basic arithmetical calculations. Ability to use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Ability to type letters, memoranda and other standar business forms in correct format. Ability to operate general office equipment. Ability to handle telephone calls in a courteous and effective manner. Ability to plan, organize, and coordinate work assignments. Ability to communicate effectively verbally and in writing. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with others. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Cortazzo was the Program Manager referred to by the job descriptions for both the Staff Assistant position and the Secretary Specialist position. The deadline for the filing of applications to fill the Staff Assistant position was set for February 12, 1987. Prior to the deadline, six applications for the position were received for the position. One applicant withdrew her application prior to the interview stage. Included among the applications received in a timely manner were the application of Petitioner and the application of Eulalia Diaz. The applicants were asked to resubmit their applications because the original applications were misplaced. Consequently, the applications in Respondent's files are replacement applications that were received after the advertized deadline. Dr. Cortazzo prepared a list of criteria to be used in the ranking of the applicants and a list of interview questions. Dr. Cortazzo thereafter interviewed the remaining five applicants and asked each of them the same interview questions. Dr. Cortazzo then selected three finalists for the position. Both Petitioner and Ms. Diaz were among the three finalists. Prior to his interviews, Dr. Cortazzo had asked that the four Human Services Program Administrators employed by Respondent in the District interview the top three candidates and to recommend to him their top candidate for the position. Dr. Cortazzo made no effort to influence the interview process followed by these administrators. These administrators were unanimous in their recommendation of Eulalia Diaz as the top candidate for the position. After receiving the recommendation from the four Human Services Program Administrators, Dr. Cortazzo ranked the three finalists using the criteria he had previously developed. Ms. Diaz received the highest ranking of the three finalists. Dr. Cortazzo thereafter made the decision to employ Ms. Diaz as the Staff Assistant. Petitioner's alleged handicap had no bearing on Dr. Cortazzo's decision to hire Ms. Diaz as the Staff Assistant. Petitioner has a congenital deformity of the right leg which resulted from her umbilical cord being wrapped around her right leg at birth. As a consequence, her right leg did not fully develop. She has circulation problems in her right leg and her right leg is both shorter and weaker than her left. Petitioner cannot sit, stand or walk for long periods of time. She wears an orthopedic shoe and walks with a slight limp and an unsteady gait. During the course of her employment with Respondent, she has had to utilize crutches on two occasions for brief periods of time after her right leg had become infected from a cut. Her condition has had, at most, a minimal impact on her ability to perform her job. During the period of time of July 1977 to October 1986, Petitioner received thirteen job evaluations. For each of these evaluations, Petitioner received an overall evaluation of either outstanding or exceeds performance standards. The last six of these evaluations were by Dr. Cortazzo. There was a conflict in the testimony as to the duties Petitioner was actually performing. Petitioner contends that the job description for the Secretary Specialist position does not adequately describe the duties she was actually fulfilling. Petitioner contends that she was essentially performing the duties and responsibilities of the Staff Assistant before the position was created. Respondent contends that the duties Petitioner was performing were primarily secretarial and that the job descriptions and the skills required to fill these positions are separate and distinct. This dispute is resolved by finding that the Secretary Specialist job description adequately describes the job Petitioner was performing and that she was not essentially performing the duties and responsibilities that were expected of the Staff Assistant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6823 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as being conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4, 5, and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 and 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 13-19 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3-6, 8, 12, and 20-21 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. (There are two paragraphs numbered 3, both of which are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.) Copies furnished: Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle West, Suite 131 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, Esquire General Counsel 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Gladys Laroche 455 N.E. 159th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Arnold Cortazzo Department of Labor and Employment Security 401 N.W. Second Avenue, Room S221 Miami, Florida 33128 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road --Suite #240 Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. Respondent began her teaching career with the Broward County School District in or around January 2002, at which time she was assigned to South Broward High School ("South Broward").2/ In or around 2006, Petitioner introduced a program known as "Post-Graduate Alternatives for Secondary Students" ("PASS program") to most of its high schools, including South Broward. As explained by various witnesses during the final hearing, the PASS program is designed to assist students with moderate to significant learning disabilities——all of whom are between the ages of 18 to 21 and have already received special high school diplomas——attain the highest possible level of independence. This is achieved by placing students in a variety of work experience sites (simulated at first in the classroom and later at actual work locations), providing instruction related to community living tasks (e.g., use of money, transportation, shopping), and working to improve the students' behavior and communication skills. Following its district-wide introduction in 2006, the PASS program underwent various refinements, which included the development of clear, well-defined "steps" for instructors to follow in their implementation of the program. "Step 1," for instance, requires a PASS teacher, who is supported by two classroom paraprofessionals, to create a minimum of five stations (or, in Petitioner's terminology, "zones") within the classroom, with each zone consisting of multiple tasks. Such stations can run the gamut from a "restaurant zone," where students learn, for example, to sort silverware, to a "laundry zone," where students are taught to fold and hang clothing. Among other things, the PASS steps also require the teacher to: create specialized zone instructions for each of the approximately 10-12 students to which the PASS instructor is assigned; create schedules to govern the rotation of students from zone to zone; and collect data that tracks each student's performance on every assigned task, which is later used for "job matching" and to determine if the students are meeting the goals in their Transition Individualized Education Plans ("TIEPs"). As will be seen shortly, Respondent demonstrated a substantial lack of compliance with several of the PASS steps during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, most notably in the area of data collection; it is upon that particular failing that the ensuing factual recitation will largely focus. 2010-2011 School Year Prior to the start of the 2010-2011 academic year, Respondent was provided with a document titled, "PASS Process Implementation Steps & Expectations," which plainly instructed, inter alia, that PASS teachers record data (at least one time per week) for each student and for every task to which the student was assigned. The document read: STEP 1: IDENTIFY ZONES Arrange furniture/physical space for zones All zones clearly defined and labeled Minimum of 5 zones/areas 1:1 zone/area defined STEP 2: DETERMINE TASKS PER ZONE At least 3-5 tasks in each zone to start; increase number of tasks as they are mastered Construct tasks for the zones – both high and low level Age appropriate materials must be used; nothing that's typically seen in elementary classrooms Variety of instructional methods used STEP 3: DEVELOP THE MASTER SCHEDULE Implement the Master Schedule Master Schedule/zone assignments are based on [each students' transition individualized education plan or "TIEP"] STEP 4: DEVELOP THE ZONE PROFILES Post a Zone Profile in every zone; zone profile shows, at a glance, which student should be in the zone at what particular time. STEP 5: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT STAFF SCHEDULES Teacher and paraprofessional schedules are complete Schedule shows coverage for each zone STEP 6: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ZONE BINDERS WITH TASK INSTRUCTIONS Individualized task instructions for every task and every student in every zone (includes written instructions for readers/visual instructions for nonreaders) STEP 7: DEVELOP INDIVIDUAL DAILY STUDENTS SCHEDULES Create master individual schedules for students Implement Daily Independent Individual Student Schedule; student is following their individual schedule and going to zone that is stated on their schedule at their own individual pace Students rotating from zone to zone independently by following their individual daily schedule Students do schedule review at the end of the day for the next day; teacher/para checks for accuracy Students meaningfully engaged in zones STEP 8: COMPLETE STUDENT ASSESSMENTS Complete comprehensive vocational assessment(s) Complete specific behavior assessments (each task, for each student, for each zone, each week) Evidence of data collection Evidence of individual student binders to contain record keeping Evidence that staff is implementing students' TIEP STEP 9: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT [Community Based Instruction "CBI"] PROCESS Sites based on TIEP and student assessments Classroom zones based on CBI/Community sites Individualized student schedules created for each CBI site Preparation of students before CBI Follow-up CBI's CBI schedule posted 3-4 students maximum at any given site (emphasis added). As established during the final hearing, the school district did not simply disseminate the foregoing steps to Respondent and leave her to her own devices. On the contrary, Respondent——who previously received formal PASS training from the school district——was provided with significant support throughout the 2010-2011 school year from Ms. Wendy Barnes, a PASS program transition instructor. Nevertheless, evidence of Respondent's noncompliance with the PASS steps was evident by early October 2010. Indeed, a classroom observation on October 5, 2010, by Ms. Barnes and Deborah Kearns (an assistant principal at South Broward and Respondent's immediate supervisor) revealed no evidence of data collection, contrary to Step Eight of the PASS program. In addition, the observers discovered a more fundamental problem in that the zone instruction binders were incomplete and not individualized for the students. Subsequently, on October 14, 2010, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss her noncompliance with the PASS program and to develop a plan to correct the shortcomings. At the conclusion of the meeting, Respondent was: advised that she was being placed on a cycle of assistance, whereby she would be provided with written directives on a weekly basis by Ms. Kearns; informed that she would continue to receive support from Ms. Barnes, who would assist her in complying with the directives; and provided with a memorandum from Ms. Kearns, which emphasized, among other things, that her "failure to implement and demonstrate improvements throughout this cycle of assistance may result in [her] placement on a Professional Development Plan." Owing perhaps to the sheer impracticability of ordering Respondent to bring all PASS steps into immediate compliance, Ms. Barnes instead directed, in a memorandum dated October 20, 2010, that Respondent correct Step Two (and only Step Two) within the next six days. In relevant part, the memorandum read: On 10/19/10, Ms. Barnes assisted you with regard to Step 2 of the PASS process Implementation Expectations. As discussed at that time, PASS Step 2 requires that zone binders and individual zone tasks reflect the following: Students must be assigned at least 3-5 activities per zone. Students must be assigned an amount and level of zone activities to maintain engagement during the period scheduled within each zone. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are [] varied by level and challenging based upon individual student ability and need. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are appropriate . . . . You are directed to bring these aspects of Step 2 of the PASS program into compliance by October 26, 2010. Unfortunately, Respondent failed to satisfy this reasonable——and modest——directive, as Ms. Kearns and Ms. Barnes discovered during an observation of Respondent's classroom on October 26, 2010. In response, Ms. Barnes issued a memorandum to Respondent the following day, wherein she directed Respondent to bring "item three" of Step Two (i.e., assign zone tasks of varying difficulty based upon student ability), as well as Steps Three and Four, into compliance by November 2, 2010. Ms. Barnes' ample and appropriate support efforts notwithstanding, Respondent brought only one of the PASS steps (Step One) into compliance by mid-December, a fact that was confirmed during a classroom observation on December 14, 2010. Ms. Kearns discussed this issue with Respondent during a pre- disciplinary conference held the following day, at which time Respondent admitted that she had "muddled" the implementation of the PASS steps. Two days later, on December 17, 2010, Ms. Kearns warned Respondent in writing that her continued failure to implement the PASS steps might result in further disciplinary action. As the 2010-2011 school year progressed, Respondent's failure to implement the PASS steps——particularly the step related to data3/ collection——continued in spite of frequent classroom visits, numerous memoranda4/ and emails, and regular meetings5/ with Ms. Kearns, Ms. Barnes, and Ms. Aldridge. Ultimately, on April 5, 2011, Ms. Kearns provided written notification to Respondent that she was being placed on a 90-day Performance Development Plan ("PDP") due to deficiencies in the areas of lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation (i.e., assessments and data collection). The PDP, which was drafted during a meeting held the same date (attended by Ms. Kearns, Respondent, the school principal, and a union representative), articulated the corrections Respondent was required to make, various strategies for improvement, and the assistance with which Respondent would be provided. With respect to the issue of data collection, for example, the PDP contemplated that by September 19, 2011, Respondent would be required to demonstrate mastery of the requirement that she "collect and record quantitative data for each task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis." The PDP further provided that Ms. Barnes and/or Ms. Aldridge would work with Respondent to improve her data collection methods. (At Respondent's request, this portion of the PDP was amended on May 31, 2011, to read that only "District Personnel and/or Shalita Aldridge" would assist her.) On April 11, 2011, less than one week after the creation of the PDP, Ms. Barnes met with Respondent (for one hour) to review and discuss proper data collection methods. Despite this meeting and the subsequent provision of ample support, Respondent's failure to collect proper data——and comply with numerous other PASS steps——persisted: on April 27, 2011, Ms. Kearns noticed during a classroom observation that Respondent was still not collecting weekly data for each task and, further, that the data she had collected was not measureable; on May 3, 2011, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Kearns examined a sample of recent data sheets, which revealed that Respondent's data entries were vague and not recorded separately by task type; on May 16, 2012, during a classroom visit by Alan Strauss (South Broward's principal) and Louis Ruccolo (a transition supervisor with the district), it was observed that six PASS steps were out of compliance, including data collection; and, on May 19, 2011, a one-hour classroom observation by Ms. Kearns uncovered myriad data collection issues, which included, with respect to one particular student, zero "office zone" data entries during the preceding six weeks. Respondent's continued noncompliance resulted, not surprisingly, in the issuance of several reprimands by Ms. Kearns. The first, provided to Respondent in writing on May 12, 2011, was based upon her repeated failure to comply with time- bound directives; the second, issued in early June of 2011, disciplined Respondent for her lack of adherence to "directives relative to student supervision." On or about June 10, 2011, Ms. Kearns issued a memorandum to Respondent that discussed, in painstaking detail, what would be expected of her during the following school year. Among other things, the memorandum advised Respondent that she would be required, effective August 22, 2011, to "utilize the specific data collection tools that are named in [her] PDP," including but not limited to weekly zone task data. Respondent was further informed, accurately as it turns out, that "District support will continue to be provided . . . during the school year and will begin the week of August 15, 2011." 2011-2012 School Year At the outset of the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Strauss provided Respondent with two memoranda. The first, dated August 16, 2012, recounted Respondent's shortcomings during the preceding academic year, which included her failure to "collect and maintain consistent and quantitative data through specific zone task data collection." The second, which Respondent received on August 22, 2011, reminded her that her PDP (initiated on April 1, 2011) had carried over from the previous year and would expire on September 13, 2011; Respondent was further advised that the performance evaluation to be conducted upon the expiration of her PDP would be drafted under the assessment system in effect during the 2010-2011 school year. Pursuant to the School Board's evaluation system (known as the Instructional Personnel Assessment System or "IPAS"), teachers are rated (satisfactory, in need of improvement, or unsatisfactory) in ten areas: instructional planning; lesson management; lesson presentation; communication; classroom management; behavior management; records management; subject matter knowledge; "other professional competencies"; and student performance evaluation. On September 19, 2011, Ms. Khandia Pinkney——an assistant principal at South Broward, who assumed the duties of Ms. Kearns——issued Respondent's evaluation for the 2010-2011 school year. In the evaluation, Ms. Pinkney awarded Respondent satisfactory ratings in seven of the performance areas, while the remaining three (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation) were deemed unsatisfactory. In light of her failure to achieve satisfactory ratings in all ten performance areas, Respondent was issued an overall performance rating of unsatisfactory. Although Respondent's poor evaluation could have resulted in the initiation of termination proceedings, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Pinkney elected instead to place Respondent on a new, 90-day PDP. The second PDP, which was drafted with Respondent's collaboration on September 19, 2011, listed 14 specific deficiencies (e.g., "collect and record quantitative data for every task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis") that Respondent was required to correct by January 10, 2012. In accordance with the terms of the second PDP, Respondent received considerable support and supervision as the school year progressed. Such support included twice-weekly visits by Ms. Shaneka President (a district-level transition teacher) to Respondent's classroom, as well as weekly follow-up e-mails that emphasized, among various issues, the necessity of proper data collection.6/ Respondent's data collection issues persisted; in light of this continued failing, as well as several other concerns, Ms. Pinkney drafted a written recommendation, dated October 17, 2011, that Respondent be suspended from work for three days.7/ In pertinent part, the recommendation read: On 10/13/2010 you received a summary memo, on 12/17/2010 you received a written warning, on 3/01/2011 you received a verbal reprimand, and on 5/12/2011 and 6/10/2011 you received written reprimands. All notifications were regarding the concern with your failure to follow directives. You have failed to meet the performance standards required of your position as a teacher. Specifically, you have failed to follow directives relative to leaving campus without administrative approval, following time-bound directives, directives relative to student supervision by failing to properly supervise you SVE students, utilizing instructional time for personal activities such as smoking and personal phone calls, and not following procedural directives. . . . Your repeated failure to follow directives is a serious breach of conduct that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am recommending that your name be sent before the School Board . . . for a 3-day suspension. Petitioner's receipt of the foregoing memorandum did not spur her into compliance: two days later, on October 19, 2011, Mr. Ruccolo and Ms. Pinkney conducted an observation of Petitioner's classroom, during which they noticed——among other deficiencies——instances of incomplete8/ and/or inaccurate data.9/ The observed deficiencies were discussed with Respondent during a meeting with Ms. Pinkney on October 25, 2011, and further outlined in a memorandum issued to Respondent two days later. During the ensuing four weeks, Ms. President continued to remind Respondent, in writing and on no fewer than four occasions, of the requirement to record data "for every task for every student in every zone on a weekly basis."10/ Respondent, however, failed to heed this guidance——as Mr. Strauss learned during a classroom observation of Respondent's classroom on December 1, 2011. On that occasion, Mr. Strauss and an intern principal (Ms. Cherie Hodgson-Toeller) uncovered numerous data collection issues, each of which was discussed with Respondent during a meeting on December 5, 2011, as well as detailed in a memorandum provided to Respondent the following week. The memorandum read, in relevant part: We also pointed out that [student "Sa."] had no data in her binder with respect to her performance in the Office zone. We discussed that no data was reflected in the binders for the current week and commented that the data recorded in the binders was lacking uniformity and data recorded did not provide[] comparison details to determine the students['] current percentage of correct completions while performing the task or indicate whether or not they are making adequate progress. . . . It was also discussed that we witnessed a lot of confusion in the classroom and inconsistencies in monitoring, scheduling, and tracking of data continue to exist. (emphasis added). Over the next four weeks, Respondent's issues with data collection persisted, and, in at least one regard, worsened. During an observation of Respondent's class on January 3, 2012, Ms. Pinkney discovered that no data had been recorded for one particular student in the "restaurant zone"; with respect to another student, Ms. Pinkney noted, troublingly, that "restaurant zone" data had been recorded for a date (December 15, 2011) that the student had been absent. The cause of the latter discrepancy, as established by Ms. Riley's credible testimony, was a directive to Ms. Riley from Respondent to manufacture data entries (after the fact) to create the appearance of proper data collection. As Ms. Riley explained during the final hearing: There were times [when] I was uncomfortable. Ms. Liquori would say, well, Ms. Presidente [sic] and them are coming on Monday, or, they are coming this and such date, so you need to go ahead and put your data in. And there was a time where she asked me to put in data for a student that had not been in school for three weeks. And I told her, I said, I don't think that we are supposed to be doing that. I know that's not right for us to do that. But because you are my supervisor and teacher, then I have to follow orders from my supervising teacher. Q. So, if I understand correctly then, Ms. Liquori instructed you to put in data on a student that wasn't present. A. That is correct. Q. And that was false data. A. Right. And there was [sic] times where we would have to put down a student mastered a task when we know that the student had not mastered that task. Q. Why would Ms. Liquori make you do that? A. Because data needs to be put in before Ms. Presidente [sic] and them would come in. Because when they come in they did the observations. (emphasis added). A meeting was thereafter scheduled for January 12, 2012, during which Ms. Pinkney intended to close Respondent's PDP and draft an unfavorable performance evaluation. From what can be gleaned from the record, however, the meeting was postponed by virtue of Respondent's placement on medical leave. The meeting was ultimately convened on April 26, 2012, at which time Ms. Pinkney issued a written performance evaluation that rated Respondent unsatisfactory in three performance areas (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation——the same categories that were rated unsatisfactory during the previous evaluation), satisfactory in the other seven areas, and unsatisfactory overall. Petitioner has demonstrated by a greater weight of the evidence that Respondent's failure to collect appropriate PASS data, a deficiency that persisted for more than one and one-half school years, constituted a willful neglect of her duties. In so finding, it is notable: that the data collection tasks Respondent was directed to perform were uncomplicated and reasonable in nature; that Respondent received adequate training concerning the PASS program prior to the 2010-2011 school year, as well as substantial levels of support and guidance during each school year at issue; and that Respondent never indicated, at any point during the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years, that she did not understand her obligations or was unable to perform them.11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 8th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and return her to an annual contract.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Gabriele has been employed by the School Board since October 13, 1997. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Ms. Gabriele's employment was subject to section 1012.33, which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for just cause. During the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Gabriele was a teacher at Bashaw Elementary School (Bashaw). As a teacher, Ms. Gabriele was required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board. On February 17, 2011, an Office of Professional Standards (OPS) file was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele based upon allegations that, on February 9, 2011, Ms. Gabriele asked a teacher's aide, Brenda Twinem (Ms. Twinem), in the presence of students, "Can I kill a kid today?", and, on February 16, 2011, Ms. Gabriele called a female student to the front of the classroom and yelled at her in the presence of other students and a parent. On April 18, 2011, another OPS file was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele based upon an allegation that she made intentional contact with a witness (Ms. Twinem) who was involved in a recent OPS investigation into the alleged misconduct of Ms. Gabriele. On April 19, 2011, the School Board notified Ms. Gabriele of its intent to place her on paid administrative leave pending the OPS investigation. On June 3, 2011, the superintendent notified Ms. Gabriele of his intent to recommend the suspension of her employment for 15 days without pay, the dates of which to be determined by her principal, and a return to annual contract status. The June 2011 AC notified Ms. Gabriele of the School Board's intent to suspend her employment and set forth the basis of the superintendent's recommendation for suspension. In the AC, the School Board charged that Ms. Gabriele had engaged in actions which constituted just cause under Section 6.11 of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board. These actions included: immorality, misconduct in office, corporal punishment, excessive force, and violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e). Joshua Bennett (Principal Bennett) became the principal of Bashaw in September 2010. Among his many other duties during the 2010-2011 school year, Principal Bennett was responsible for the supervision of the Bashaw teachers, including Ms. Gabriele, who was a fifth-grade teacher. Ms. Gabriele's class size fluctuated from 18 to 22 students during the 2010-2011 school year. It was noted that, during the math instruction period, there were changes in the number of students in her classroom, and it changed when Principal Bennett moved a student out of her class. Principal Bennett received some parent complaints and concerns regarding Ms. Gabriele shortly after he became Bashaw's principal. Based on these complaints, Principal Bennett collected information from the parents and decided to have an informal conversation with Ms. Gabriele. He also determined to walk through her classroom more frequently during the school year. Further, Principal Bennett recommended to Ms. Gabriele that she take some behavior management classes. Ms. Gabriele had the services of a paraprofessional (a/k/a a teacher's aide), Ms. Twinem, for a specific amount of time (40 to 50 minutes) during a particular day each week. While working for Ms. Gabriele as a paraprofessional, Ms. Twinem would check off homework, sort papers, grade papers, or work with groups of students as she was directed. In February 2011, Ms. Twinem approached Ms. Gabriele to provide her information. There were several students engaged in conversations in close proximity to Ms. Gabriele as she sat at her desk. According to Ms. Twinem, Ms. Twinem was standing beside Ms. Gabriele's desk when Ms. Gabriele looked at her and, in a frustrated tone, stated, "Can I kill a kid?" (Gabriele's Statement). Ms. Twinem was speechless because she thought it was inappropriate for Ms. Gabriele to make that statement in front of students. Ms. Twinem told Principal Bennett of Gabriele's Statement shortly thereafter. Ms. Twinem wrote her own account of Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Twinem's account contained her thought that Ms. Gabriele was joking, but she (Ms. Twinem) did not "know how it [Gabriele's Statement] was interpreted by the students." Clearly, at that time, Ms. Twinem had concerns about what the students thought of Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele admitted to making Gabriele's Statement. At hearing, she testified that, at the time she made the statement, the students were working with their partners, and it was loud in the classroom. After a student had asked her the same question several times, Ms. Gabriele made Gabriele's Statement. Although Ms. Gabriele testified that she was not frustrated, mad or upset when she made the statement, that she just made the statement "off-the-cuff kind of thing," this is not credible. According to Ms. Gabriele, the student's question involved a long-standing classroom practice of the students placing their completed assignments in a pink bin. If the student was indeed asking or questioning this long-standing practice, it would be natural for some type of frustration or exasperation to be expected. Ms. Gabriele conceded that, even if Gabriele's Statement had been made in jest or in a joking manner, it was inappropriate. Also in February 2011, Principal Bennett had a specific complaint involving a parent's (E.B.) observation during a visit to Ms. Gabriele's classroom. With Ms. Gabriele's knowledge that she was in the classroom, E.B. had come to pick up her student and to search for some misplaced homework in the classroom. E.B. observed a female student (later identified by the initials N.A.) go to the front of the classroom where Ms. Gabriele was yelling at her. E.B. described Ms. Gabriele's actions as ". . . really reaming the kid, . . . And she just didn't seem like she was letting up, and the child was just very distraught." E.B. observed N.A. to be "really teary eyed . . . Not in a full cry, but looked like she would break down." E.B. thought Ms. Gabriele's behavior was "pretty harsh," loud in a real demanding way, and fierce. E.B testified that, had Ms. Gabriele been yelling at E.B.'s student, she "probably would have yanked her in the hall and had a few words." E.B. was appalled at Ms. Gabriele's behavior and reported her observation to Principal Bennett. As a result of her conversation with Principal Bennett, E.B. followed up with a letter to the principal detailing what she had witnessed in Ms. Gabriele's classroom, as well as other observations she had while chaperoning a school field trip with Ms. Gabriele's class. E.B. requested to be kept informed of what action was being taken and volunteered to be in the classroom when her scheduled permitted. Shortly thereafter, an OPS investigation was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele. Debra Horne (Ms. Horne) is a specialist in the OPS. Ms. Horne conducted an investigation of E.B.'s classroom observation and Gabriele's Statement by interviewing Ms. Twinem; 11 students from Ms. Gabriele's class, including N.A.; and Ms. Gabriele. Ms. Twinem and the students' statements were taken on February 18, 2011, making them almost contemporaneous with the events. During the OPS interviews with the 11 students, all 11 stated that Ms. Gabriele yells at the students, and one student said her yelling was "extreme." Five of the students stated Ms. Gabriele embarrassed them or other students by her actions; four stated Ms. Gabriele called students different names, such as "toads," "toadettes," "hillbilly," or "baby"; and three said she made them cry or other students cry. During her OPS interview, N.A. stated that Ms. Gabriele had made her cry and that it embarrassed her a lot. N.A. further stated that Ms. Gabriele yelled at her and other students a lot.2/ During Ms. Twinem's OPS interview regarding Gabriele's Statement, she described Ms. Gabriele as being frustrated and using a frustrated tone when it was spoken. At the hearing Ms. Twinem also testified that she thought Gabriele's Statement was made "out of frustration," but that it was "inappropriate" nonetheless. Ms. Gabriele's OPS interview occurred on March 17, 2011. Ms. Horne conducted the OPS interview and followed her standard procedures in telling Ms. Gabriele the substance of the investigation. Aside from being told what her rights and duties were regarding the investigation, Ms. Gabriele was also reminded of the School Board policy regarding her cooperation with the investigation and her responsibility to not interfere with it or communicate with any witnesses to the investigation. Ms. Gabriele's interview included questions about E.B.'s letter, including E.B.'s classroom observations, and Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele confirmed she was aware that E.B.'s letter was sent "downtown." Ms. Gabriele maintained that she thought the only issue in the initial investigation was E.B.'s letter. This position is thwarted when one reviews her OPS interview wherein Ms. Gabriele was questioned about both E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement. Although during the OPS interview Ms. Gabriele stated she did not remember the incident with N.A. crying, she did admit that if E.B.'s recollection of the incident with N.A. was correct that she, Ms. Gabriele, could "have handled it differently" by calling the student off to the side to discuss the issue. Also, during the OPS interview, Ms. Gabriele admitted that Gabriele's Statement was inappropriate when made to a coworker in the presence of students. Ms. Gabriele received a copy of the School Board's initial OPS investigative report in April 2011. Within that report, and through Ms. Gabriele's testimony, she acknowledged receipt of that investigative file,3/ which included all the information obtained during the initial OPS investigation, including her own interview regarding E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement. In Section III of the initial OPS investigative report (for E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement) and through her hearing testimony, Ms. Horne detailed her standard routine with respect to the description given to each witness at the start of his/her interview. Further, Ms. Horne advised School Board employees of their obligation to cooperate with the investigation as well as the School Board's Policy 6.13.4/ Ms. Gabriele testified that she was aware of the policies. On Monday morning, April 18, 2011, when Ms. Twinem reported to Ms. Gabriele's classroom to sort papers and check homework, she was subjected to questions by Ms. Gabriele regarding whether or not Ms. Twinem had, in fact, reported Gabriele's Statement to Principal Bennett. Ms. Gabriele testified she found out that Ms. Twinem was upset or bothered by Gabriele's Statement during one of her meetings with Principal Bennett. However, neither her testimony nor Principal Bennett's testimony reflected upon any meeting between those two on that Monday morning or the week prior for Ms. Gabriele to make that connection. Further, as Ms. Gabriele testified, she "obviously" knew that Ms. Twinem was the person who reported Gabriele's Statement, as she was the only other adult in the classroom at the time it was uttered. Ms. Twinem testified that she felt like "a deer in the headlights" when Ms. Gabriele asked her about reporting Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Twinem admitted to Ms. Gabriele that she had reported Gabriele's Statement to the principal "a long time ago." Ms. Twinem testified she was "anxious and nervous and like just didn't feel good" when Ms. Gabriele confronted her. Ms. Twinem reported this first encounter to Principal Bennett because she thought it should not have occurred. Later that same morning, Ms. Gabriele came into Ms. Twinem's office and told Ms. Twinem that she shouldn't tell anyone about their prior conversation because Ms. Gabriele could get in trouble. Ms. Twinem reported this second encounter to Principal Bennett. Still, later that same day when Ms. Twinem was in her office, Ms. Gabriele stood at the door and said that Ms. Twinem had gotten her (Ms. Gabriele) in trouble, because she had reported the second contact to the principal. Ms. Twinem reported this third contact to Principal Bennett. Principal Bennett testified that, after Ms. Twinem reported the first contact by Ms. Gabriele, he conferred with the OPS personnel as to what he should do. Based on direction from OPS, Principal Bennett hastily attempted to arrange a meeting with Ms. Gabriele to give her a verbal directive about contacting any witnesses involved with the investigation. Before the meeting could occur, Ms. Twinem reported that Ms. Gabriele had contacted her again. Prior to the third encounter, Principal Bennett issued a verbal directive to Ms. Gabriele about contacting any witnesses involved in the investigation. His directive included an admonishment "to cease and desist talking to the other employees about the OPS matter." Principal Bennett recounted that he told Ms. Gabriele that she was "not to talk to any other employees about the open investigation." Ms. Gabriele admitted she spoke with Ms. Twinem three times on April 18, 2011. Ms. Gabriele claimed that she did not understand who she could or could not talk to with respect to the investigation and that she only wanted to apologize for making Ms. Twinem upset about Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele admitted she knew it was Ms. Twinem who reported Gabriele's Statement to the principal. In the event Ms. Gabriele had questions about who she could or could not talk to, she had the opportunity to ask either Principal Bennett or Ms. Horne. Such dialogue apparently did not occur.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Manatee County School Board enter a final order suspending Ms. Gabriele for 15 days without pay and returning her to an annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 8th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, including Boca Raton Community High School (BRCHS). Respondent is employed by the School Board as a custodian, but is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings. As a custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the SEIU/Florida Public Services Union (SEIU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and SEIU (SEIU Contract). Article 7 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Employees Contractual Rights." Section 2 of this article provides as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the School Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Management Rights," and it provides, in pertinent part, that the School Board has the right "to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." Article 17 of the SEIU Contract provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph # 7 below may be cited if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable School Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless, there is another reasonably related act by the same employee within a twenty four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable law. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Prior to her suspension pursuant to Article 7, Section 2, of the SEIU Contract in December 2008, Respondent was assigned to BRCHS. Respondent started working as a custodian at BRCHS in or around 2006. At the time, she was a full-time employee, with hours from 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Respondent had poor attendance as a full-time employee. In or around December 2007, at Respondent's request, the School Board changed her status to a permanent part-time employee, with a four-hour, instead of an eight-hour, work day, five days a week. She continued to work an evening shift. It was hoped that the change to part-time status would result in improvement in Respondent's attendance. Respondent's attendance, however, did not improve. Consequently, on December 3, 2007, Cheryl Lombard, an assistant principal at BRCHS, sent Respondent the following memorandum concerning "[e]mployment [e]xpectations": In order to improve your job performance the following directives must be adhered to in order for the school operations to run efficiently: You are directed to report to duty at your assigned time 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, April 10, 2009. You are directed to work your complete four-hour shift from 4:00-8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You are directed to bring a doctor's note for every absence stating the dates you were under the doctor's care and that you have been released to perform all job responsibilities without restrictions. You are directed to notify the lead custodian/night administrator anytime you must leave campus during duty hours. You are directed to complete a TDE for all absences, late arrivals, and early dismissals from work. You are directed to follow your duty schedule. You are directed to clean all assigned areas in accordance with the procedures outlined by the District. You are directed to complete all assignments given in accordance with directions given. You are directed to refrain from using your cell phone except during your fifteen- minute break. In case of emergency, please contact Dr. Lombard. You are to report to the head custodian/designee upon your arrival on duty. You are directed to sign out with the lead custodian every night. You are directed to speak to all staff members and others in a professional manner while on District property or on duty. You are directed to refrain from threatening fellow custodians. Failure to follow any of the above mentioned directives will be considered insubordination and may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. In December 2007, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 9.75 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 9.5 hours. On January 25, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent a verbal reprimand (which was followed-up by a "written notation"). The written notation read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Notation of a Verbal Reprimand for Violation of School Board Policy 1.013 as it pertains to insubordination for failure to follow Directives Re: Attendance. Specifically, you have had excessive tardies and absences. Furthermore, you have failed to produce a doctor's note stating that you were under his/her care, as was required per the memo you received on December 3, 2007. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Further, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination. In January 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 22 hours. On February 6, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent a written reprimand, which read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Reprimand for insubordination Re: Attendance after our January 25, 2008 meeting. Specifically, on January 28 and February 4 you were absent and on January 30 you were 30 minutes late for your four (4) hour shift. Your conduct violated School Board Policy 1.013. Regardless of the circumstances that may have brought them about, such inappropriate actions and/or inactions on your part do not reflect positively on your position. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Furthermore, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar action in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent was out on medical/sick leave for a total of approximately six weeks in February and March 2008. On April 17, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent another written reprimand. This written reprimand read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Reprimand for insubordination regarding attendance after our April 15, 2008, meeting. Specifically, on April 16, you were absent for two and one half hours of your four hour shift. Your conduct violated School Board Policy 1.013. Regardless of the circumstances that may have brought them about, such inappropriate actions and/or inactions on your part do not reflect positively on your position. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Furthermore, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar action in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. In April 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 21 hours. In May 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 36 hours. Respondent's brother and father passed away in April and May 2008, respectively. In June 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 51.5 hours. In July 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 21 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 15 hours. 24, Up to and including August 6, 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 7.5 hours that month. On August 6, 2008, the principal of BRCHS issued Respondent a written directive, which read as follows: On August 6, 2008, you met with Ms. Lombard, Assistant Principal, and HR Manager Bob Pinkos to discuss the seriousness of your chronic absenteeism and tardiness. During that meeting the Written Directive provided you on December 3, 2007 addressing attendance at work and compliance [with] the duty schedule was discussed. Furthermore, the following disciplinary actions have been issued related to insubordination for failure to adhere to the December 3, 2007 directives. January 28, 2007 [sic] Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation issued for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. February 6, 2008, Written Reprimand issued for insubordination for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. April 17, 2008, a second Written Reprimand issued for insubordination for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. A copy of the December 3, 2007 directive is enclosed for your review. Although you have received several disciplinary actions advising you to comply with the December 3, 2007 [directive] your behavior with respect to attendance at work and compliance [with] your duty schedule continues to fail to meet expectations. Future similar incidents, to include those that may occur beyond the date of this directive and related to failing to follow the December 3, 2007 directive, will be considered insubordination and subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated as it would positively impact the operation at Boca Raton Community High School. The remainder of the month of August 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 22.25 hours and out on medical/sick leave a total of 3.5 hours. In September 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 33.25 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 4 hours. In October 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 23.25 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 5 hours. At the end of October 2008, following the completion of an "administrative personnel investigation of Respondent's "behavior with respect to attendance at work and compliance [with her] duty schedule," a "pre-disciplinary meeting" was held at which Respondent was given the opportunity to "explain or rebut the outcome of the investigation." At the meeting, Respondent acknowledged that she had "missed lots of time from work," but she claimed that she had "been trying to improve her attendance." In November 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 24.25 hours. Respondent was out on medical/sick leave for her entire four hour shift on December 1, 2008. On December 2, 2008, she was absent without leave and/or pay .25 hours. The following day, she was suspended. Respondent's poor attendance has adversely affected others at BRCHS. Sometimes, the work Respondent was responsible for was done, in her absence, by the other custodians at the school, which "created a bit of unrest" because these custodians also had their own work to do. On other occasions, when Respondent was absent, the work she was assigned went undone, which created a "problem for teachers [and their students] when they c[a]me in the next morning" and had to deal with classrooms that were not cleaned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia E. Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Karen Gadson 1711 Wedgewood Plaza Drive Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
