The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's employment with the Lee County School District for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the acting superintendent of schools for the Lee County School District. References to "Petitioner" shall include Petitioner's predecessors and the Lee County School Board. Petitioner originally hired Respondent as a school bus driver in September 1974. Respondent worked in this capacity for Petitioner for the ensuing 23 years, except for the 1988-89 school year. During the time in question, Respondent worked under an annual contract ending June 30, 1997. During the one-year period ending June 30, 1997, Petitioner entered into a contract with Child Care of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Child Care) for the use of school property, including school buses. The purpose of the contract is to establish a program under which Child Care transports and supervises schoolchildren in after-school and summertime daycare programs. Under the contract, Petitioner provides Respondent with school buses and bus drivers. The contract prohibits the operation of the buses by anyone other than drivers "assigned by [Petitioner]." The contract provides that Petitioner shall charge Child Care for the actual costs of operating the buses, the "drivers' hourly salary," and an additional mileage fee. The contract imposes on Child Care the responsibility of carrying motor vehicle liability insurance for Child Care and Petitioner. The contract requires that Child Care "observe all rules and regulations promulgated by the School Board for its operation of school buses." Petitioner's rules prohibit bus drivers from carrying firearms while on Petitioner's property. The employment contract between the parties also requires Respondent to abide by all state and local laws and rules. Petitioner assigned Respondent as one of the bus drivers under the Child Care contract for the Christmas break in December 1996. On the morning of December 30, 1996, Respondent carried a loaded .22-caliber pistol onto one of Petitioner's school buses. The pistol was in Respondent's jacket, which he placed beside the driver's seat. Respondent then drove his normal route, picking up children and transporting them to Petitioner's public school that, under the contract, Child Care was operating while school was not in session. After finishing his morning route, Respondent left the bus at the public school with the loaded pistol still inside the jacket beside the driver's seat. Late in the afternoon of the same day, Respondent reboarded the bus, allowed the schoolchildren to reenter the bus, and drove his normal route. The loaded pistol remained in the jacket on the bus throughout the afternoon route. Although not charged with the personal use of Petitioner's property, Respondent did not return the school bus after he completed his afternoon route. Instead, he transported his own children to the residence of his estranged wife where Respondent threatened the woman with the pistol. After threatening the woman, Respondent drove the school bus, while still armed with the loaded pistol, to Petitioner's bus lot, where Respondent parked the bus and was apprehended by police, who found the loaded pistol beside the driver's seat, but no longer in a jacket. Respondent knew throughout the day of December 30, 1996, that he was in possession of a loaded firearm while operating Petitioner's school bus.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment contract of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Hament Kevin J. Hubbart Kunkel Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 970 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Jack Taylor, Acting Superintendent Lee County Public Schools 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations grant Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was born on March 31, 1936, in Trinidad- Tobago. He migrated to the United States in 1974. In or around May 1993, when he was 57 years old, Petitioner applied for a position as a school bus driver with Respondent and was subsequently hired. Respondent is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public instruction and related services, including transportation services, to school-aged children in the county. Respondent provides transportation services through its Transportation Department. Jerry Klein has headed the Transportation Department (as its Administrative Director) since 1993. The Transportation Department operates eight transportation centers throughout the county. Assigned to these eight transportation centers are a total of approximately 1,530 school bus drivers, who range in age from 22 to 77, with most being over 40. The current job description for the position of school bus driver has been in effect since March 9, 1999. It provides that school bus drivers must meet the following "physical requirements" and "minimum qualifications requirements": PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS This is light work which requires the following physical activities: sitting, standing, walking, climbing, twisting, reaching, grasping, talking, hearing and visual acuity. Heavy lifting, pushing, and pulling may occasionally be required. Work is performed indoors and outdoors and worker is subject to noise, heat, fumes and vibration. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS Must hold a valid Commercial Driver's License, have a minimum of five (5) years licensed driving experience, and have an excellent driving record. Must be able to pass the examinations and tests required by the State of Florida to obtain a Class B Commercial Driver's License with a Passenger Transport Endorsement, without air brake restriction. Must have an acceptable background check. Must be able to pass a prescribed reflex test, physical examination, and drug test. Must be able to deal with stressful situations on a frequent basis. Must have completed eighth grade and have a demonstrated ability to read, write, and understand written instructions in English. High school diploma or GED preferred. Must be able to pass the Basic School Bus Training Course given by Miami-Dade County Public Schools Department of Transportation in accordance with Rule 6A- 3.0141 of the State of Florida Board of Education.[2] Good knowledge of county geography. In 1993, in response to "several media reports" that some of its school bus drivers "were driving with suspended licenses and [had] other types of problems with their driving record[s]," Respondent developed and reduced to writing criteria to be used to screen the driving records of applicants for school bus driver positions (Screening Criteria), criteria which, in all material respects, it still uses today. The document in which these Screening Criteria are set forth is entitled, "Screening of Driving Records for Prospective School Bus Drivers for M-DCPS and Private Company Drivers," and it reads, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * Each individual's transcript of Driver Record will be screened in accordance with the guidelines and criteria established by this document. The entire driving record will be checked for purposes of determining an individual's acceptability or unacceptability to drive a school bus for M-DCPS. The screening process will be conducted prior to employment for M-DCPS drivers and annually as part of the annual re-certification for all drivers operating under contract to M-DCPS. Points will be assigned for each entry on the Transcript of Driver Record in accordance with the Appendix attached to this document, and Paragraph 2 above. Individuals will not be approved to drive a school bus for M-DCPS if they have: More than three (3) district assigned points during the past year More than six (6) points during the past three (3) years More than nine (9) points during the past five (5) years or More than twenty five (25) district assigned points total, on the entire record. * * * 6. The Administrative Director, Department of Transportation, or his designee, may make exception to the guidelines above, as circumstances warrant. Drivers who are disqualified under the above guidelines may further appeal the decision to the Chief Business Officer. * * * APPENDIX DRIVING VIOLATION POINTS ASSESSED BY DISTRICT VIOLATION POINTS SPEEDING UP TO 14 MPH OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT 3 15 MPH OR MORE, OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT 4 IN A SCHOOL ZONE 3 DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS 3 * * * FAILING TO COMPLY WITH STOP SIGN 3 FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC INSTRUCTION/DEVICE 3 * * * IMPROPER TURNING 3 * * * SEAT BELT VIOLATION . . . . 1 CARELESS OR IMPROPER DRIVING 3 * * * 22. AT-FAULT ACCIDENT 2 * * * Note: The district assesses points under this plan for all entries, regardless of conviction status or state disposition. Although Mr. Klein, as the Transportation Department's Administrative Director, has had the authority to "make exception[s]" to these Screening Criteria, he has never done so. Petitioner worked as an hourly school bus driver from June 10, 1993, until January 1994, when he became a full-time school bus driver, a position he held for approximately seven and a half years.3 During his employment as a school bus driver with Respondent, Petitioner was involved in several vehicular accidents while on duty in his school bus. After one such accident, which occurred on August 9, 1999, Petitioner was suspended without pay by Respondent for failing to report the accident.4 The suspension began February 10, 2000, and ended March 13, 2000. Petitioner's most recent accident as a school bus driver occurred March 26, 2001. Because the accident was deemed to have been "preventable," Petitioner was directed to complete retraining before resuming his school bus driver duties. Petitioner began his retraining on May 16, 2001. He was unable to successfully complete the retraining, although given adequate time and a fair opportunity to do so. On June 5, 2001, after Petitioner had had eight days of retraining5 (one in the classroom and seven on the road), Richard Rothberg, a Coordinator II for Operations and Training with Respondent, advised Petitioner that he "wasn't meeting the qualifications" to remain a school bus driver and asked him if he "would be willing to accept a demotion to a bus aide position so that he could retain his employment with [Respondent]." Mr. Rothberg told Petitioner that if he rejected the offer of a demotion, Petitioner's "case would be referred to the OPS [Office of Professional Standards]" and "he could be terminated." Petitioner's age played no role whatsoever in Mr. Rothberg's decision to end Petitioner's retraining and give him the choice to resign from his position as a school bus driver and take a bus aide position or face the possible termination of his employment with Respondent. Petitioner opted to resign from his school bus driver position and accept a position as a bus aide rather than risk not having any job with Respondent. In his letter of resignation, Petitioner wrote that he was resigning because he had "fail[ed] driver retraining." Respondent accepted Petitioner's resignation and appointed him to a bus aide position, effective June 15, 2001, as Petitioner had requested in his letter of resignation, a position in which he has remained. In or around May 2004, Petitioner, through a union representative, John Nochi, contacted Mr. Rothberg's successor, Chris Dowda, to express Petitioner's interest in becoming a school bus driver again. Mr. Nochi, on Petitioner's behalf, asked Mr. Dowda "to check [Petitioner's] driving record to see if he would be qualified to be a school bus driver." On May 14, 2004, Mr. Dowda obtained a print out of Petitioner's driving record (as maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) and "screened it." Applying the Screening Criteria, Mr. Dowda determined, correctly, that Petitioner had accumulated a total of more than 25 district-assigned points over the period of his licensure and that he therefore was not qualified to be a school bus driver. Mr. Dowda thereafter telephoned Mr. Nochi and "told him what the results were" of the screening. Mr. Dowda had "numerous [follow-up telephone] conversations" with Mr. Nochi, who had "a lot of questions" concerning the Screening Criteria. During one of these telephone conversations, which took place sometime prior to the end of 2004, Mr. Dowda, in attempting to explain why the Screening Criteria were developed, posited the following: If there [are] bus driver[s] with a lot of citations on their record and they go out and they get into an accident and there are students injured on the bus and . . . the media gets a hold of their driving record we will see on the news, the media holding [it] up and say[ing], "Look who's driving for ou[r] district right now." Unbeknownst to Mr. Dowda, Petitioner was present in the same room as Mr. Nochi and listening on a speakerphone to what Mr. Dowda was saying to Mr. Nochi. Mr. Nochi also contacted Mr. Klein and requested him to "review the driving record of [Petitioner] and see whether it would be acceptable to bring [Petitioner] back as a school bus driver." After conducting the requested review and determining that Petitioner had "a terrible driving record with more than 25 points assessed based on a long history of driving infractions," Mr. Klein informed Mr. Nochi that he "was not prepared to bring [Petitioner] back as a school bus driver because [Petitioner] didn't meet the minimum requirements of the [S]creening [C]riteria to become a school bus driver," adding that these requirements were not "waive[d] . . . for anybody."6 Effective 2005, all school bus drivers in the state needed to have (as they still do today) a school bus driver endorsement on their commercial driver's license. That year (2005), Petitioner went to Northwestern High School to take a written test, administered by Respondent, to obtain such an endorsement, but was told that he was not eligible to, and therefore could not, take the test. Petitioner subsequently took the test at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles driver's license office in Pembroke Pines and received a passing score. On August 23, 2005, he was issued a commercial driver's license with a school bus driver endorsement. Petitioner subsequently went to Mr. Klein and showed him the newly issued license. Mr. Klein responded to being shown the license by repeating what he had told Mr. Nochi concerning Petitioner's having "too many points on his driving record" to be qualified under the Screening Criteria to become a school bus driver with Respondent. Although he has made inquiries about the possibility of his regaining a school bus driver position with Respondent, Petitioner has not submitted an official application for such a position at any time following his demotion. Under the hiring system Respondent has developed, the filing of an application is a prerequisite to becoming a school bus driver. On March 27, 2006, following his meeting with Mr. Klein, Petitioner filed the employment discrimination charge against Respondent which is the subject of the instant proceeding. The "particulars" of the charge were described by Petitioner as follows: I believe that I was discriminated against because of my age, 69. Chris Dadow [sic] made a derogatory comment about look who's driving our school buses. I was instructed to go and get a new license, and I complied. Mr. Chris Dadow [sic] refused to give me the driving test so I [could] become a School Bus Driver. I was ultimately denied the opportunity for employment. In fact, it was Petitioner's driving record, not his age, that prompted Mr. Dowda, as well as Mr. Klein, to take the positions they did, following Petitioner's demotion, regarding his ineligibility to fill any vacant school bus driver position. The comment made by Mr. Dowda about which Petitioner complained in his charge had nothing to do with Petitioner's, or anyone else's, age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2007, 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 28th day of September, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Heaven is employed by the School Board as a school bus operator for the Manatee County School District (School District). Mr. Heaven’s direct supervisor is Teri Davis, the area coordinator, and, Ms. Davis’ immediate supervisor is Terry Palmer, the director of transportation. In the 2009-2010 school year, Mr. Heaven was assigned a bus route, which included the transportation of disabled students. Barry Murray was assigned to Mr. Heaven’s bus as an attendant to assist in maintaining conduct on the bus and in getting the disabled students on and off the bus. While assigned to Mr. Heaven’s bus, Mr. Murray observed Mr. Heaven looking at the female students in a manner which Mr. Murray perceived to be inappropriate. Mr. Murray felt that Mr. Heaven was adjusting his rear view mirror so that he could look at the female students. On two different occasions, he observed Mr. Heaven stop the bus at a red light, get up out of his seat, walk to the back of the bus, go back to his seat, and continue driving. He heard Mr. Heaven ask female students their names, and Mr. Murray thought that this was inappropriate because the student’s names were already written down on a passenger list, which Mr. Heaven had. Mr. Murray heard Mr. Heaven ask one female student when her father would be home. Mr. Murray cautioned Mr. Heaven about his behavior. Mr. Murray felt that Mr. Heaven was still behaving inappropriately after he was cautioned by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray contacted Ms. Davis about his concerns. Ms. Davis was scheduled to do a routine evaluation of Mr. Heaven on January 7, 2010, by riding with him on his route and observing. She decided to see for herself if there was any inappropriate behavior while she was doing her routine evaluation. On January 7, 2010, Ms. Davis rode in Mr. Heaven’s bus for Mr. Heaven’s routes that day. While Mr. Heaven was parked at school waiting for his students, Ms. Davis saw him watch an attractive female student walk in front of the bus. She observed him watching female students as they entered and exited the bus. She observed Mr. Heaven looking at a female student in the rearview mirror of the bus. Ms. Davis felt that the looks that Mr. Heaven gave the female students were inappropriate. During her evaluation trip on January 7, 2010, Ms. Davis watched as Mr. Heaven got out of the bus at a bus stop where a female passenger was exiting. When Ms. Davis questioned Mr. Heaven about his leaving the bus, he did not give a cogent explanation. Both Mr. Murray and Ms. Davis observed female students put books in front of their faces and slip down into their seats, when Mr. Murray and Ms. Davis thought that Mr. Heaven was looking at the students. While Ms. Davis was on the evaluation ride, one student asked to come and sit next to Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis felt that the student was changing her seat to avoid Mr. Heaven’s gaze. No students testified at the final hearing concerning Mr. Heaven’s behavior on the bus. There was no direct testimony that the students felt that Mr. Heaven was looking at them inappropriately. Mr. Heaven had a plausible explanation for the actions that Ms. Davis and Mr. Murray observed. Mr. Heaven would get up at red lights sometimes in order to stretch his legs. His bus route was five hours long, and he had sustained an injury to his back and knee and needed to stretch his legs and back. He got off at the bus stop where a female student exited because he noticed an unfamiliar truck parked at the bus stop, and the female was headed for the truck. When he got out, he recognized the passenger in the truck. Mr. Heaven would adjust his rear view mirror at times when the mirror would move from its normal setting because of a bump in the road. Mr. Heaven watched the students enter and leave the bus because he felt that he needed to know who got on and who got off the bus. Mr. Heaven asked a female student when her father was going to be home because there was an antique car sitting in the student’s front yard, and he wanted to ask her father about the car. Mr. Heaven’s testimony is credited. On January 14, 2010, Ms. Davis contacted Mr. Palmer and told him what she had observed. Mr. Palmer told Ms. Davis to contact the Office of Professional Standards (OPS), which she did. Ms. Davis was instructed to send Mr. Heaven home. Ms. Davis called Mr. Heaven and told him that there was an investigation being initiated and that she would contact him later in the day and tell him what to do next. It is customary in the School District to assign employees who are under investigation a temporary alternative placement pending the investigation. In the case of bus drivers, the temporary alternative placement is washing substitute buses at the maintenance department. It should be noted, however, that the School Board contracted the washing of the regular buses to an independent contractor so that washing buses was not a routine part of the duties of a bus driver. Ms. Davis called Mr. Heaven on January 14, 2010, to let him know that he would be assigned to washing buses. Their recorded conversation is as follows: Heaven: Hello. Davis: Hey, Jerome, this is Terri Davis. I just got with Mr.--spoke with Mr. Palmer. And he said to tell you tomorrow morning you’re to report to, no earlier than 7:30, at 7:30 go over and report into at the guys at maintenance. Okay. And you’re to work your-- Heaven: For what? Davis: To wash buses or do whatever they ask you to do. Heaven: No, ma’am, I was not hired to do that. Davis: Then you need to call Mr. Palmer and talk with him, because that is what he said. Heaven: Mr. Palmer can call me. Davis: Well, you’re being assigned tomorrow to--you’re supposed to be here at 7:30 to be at maintenance to wash buses. And-- Heaven: I was hired to drive buses. Thank you. Davis: You need to be there. Jerome? Hello. Ms. Davis informed Mr. Palmer that Mr. Heaven had refused to wash buses. On January 14, 2010, Mr. Palmer called Mr. Heaven and told him that his refusal to Ms. Davis to wash buses was unacceptable and was considered insubordination. Mr. Palmer told Mr. Heaven to report to Mr. Palmer’s office the next morning at 7:30 a.m. to see how they would proceed. Mr. Heaven wanted to know why he was being investigated, and Mr. Palmer said until the investigation was over that there was nothing that he could tell Mr. Heaven. Mr. Heaven then said, “Hello. Hello. Hello,” and the telephone went dead. On January 15, 2010, Mr. Heaven went to the human resources office of the School District. He did not have an appointment, but spoke with C.V. Banks, Jr., who is the assistant director of human resources. Mr. Heaven told Mr. Banks that he was a bus driver and had been directed to wash buses. Mr. Heaven said that he had told staff at transportation that he was not hired to wash buses. Mr. Heaven did not tell Mr. Banks that he had a physical condition that would be aggravated by washing buses. Mr. Banks advised Mr. Heaven to contact Mr. Heaven’s supervisor. Mr. Heaven had sustained an injury to his leg, back, and arm during a fall from his bus in early December 2009. From December 7, 2009, to December 17, 2009, Mr. Heaven had been placed on restrictions and was not allowed to drive his bus. After he was released to return to work on December 17, 2009, he continued to see his doctor and to get physical rehabilitation therapy. After each doctor visit, Mr. Heaven would give the School District’s risk management department a copy of the doctor’s report. Mr. Heaven had a regularly scheduled appointment to see his doctor on January 15, 2010, for his injuries. After the visit on January 15, 2010, the doctor again placed Mr. Heaven on restrictions so that he could not drive his bus. The restrictions were a result of some pain medication that the doctor had prescribed and the need for Mr. Heaven to wear a knee brace. The doctor also referred Mr. Heaven to an orthopedic specialist. Mr. Heaven took the doctor’s report to the risk management department. As a result of the doctor’s report, Mr. Heaven was placed on approved leave for January 15, 2010. On January 15, 2010, Mr. Heaven called OPS and spoke to Debra Horne, an investigator for OPS. Ms. Horne told Mr. Heaven that he was to report to the maintenance department on Tuesday, January 19, 2010, to wash buses.2 At 7:00 a.m. on January 19, 2010, Mr. Heaven reported to Frank Farmer, a mechanic at the maintenance department. Mr. Farmer told Mr. Heaven that he was assigned to wash buses. Mr. Heaven said that he was not washing buses in his condition. Mr. Farmer told Mr. Heaven to go and see Mr. Palmer. After speaking with Mr. Farmer, Mr. Heaven went to see Mr. Palmer. When he got to the transportation department, Mr. Heaven spoke with Barbara Pelletier, a dispatcher. He told Ms. Pelletier that he was not going to wash buses in his condition. After speaking with Ms. Pelletier, Mr. Heaven went to Mr. Palmer’s office. Mr. Heaven wanted to know if Mr. Palmer was going to make him wash buses in the condition that he was in. Mr. Palmer told Mr. Heaven that the staff at risk management had concluded that Mr. Heaven’s condition would not preclude him from washing buses, and Mr. Palmer directed Mr. Heaven to wash buses while the investigation was pending. Mr. Heaven stated that he was not going to “further [his] injuries by washing buses.” Mr. Heaven left Mr. Palmer’s office and did not return to work that day. During their conversation on January 19, 2010, Mr. Heaven alleges that Mr. Palmer tried to push him out of the office. Mr. Palmer denies the allegation and states that he was trying to shake Mr. Heaven’s hand. Mr. Heaven called OPS on January 19, 2010, and left a message for the OPS investigator to call him. On January 20, 2010, Mr. Heaven did not report to work or call to report his absence, but instead, went to OPS and left a message for the OPS investigator to call him. The OPS investigator called Mr. Heaven on January 20, 2010. Mr. Heaven told the investigator that Mr. Palmer had pushed him and that he wanted OPS to call law enforcement. The investigator declined to call law enforcement, but told Mr. Heaven that he would need to notify the police, if he wanted to press charges against Mr. Palmer. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Heaven did not come to work and did not call in to report his absence. He did go to see his doctor for a regularly scheduled appointment. The doctor restricted Mr. Heaven from using his right knee, which precludes him from driving a school bus. Mr. Heaven was sent home for the remainder of the day and was credited with four hours of approved leave. No evidence was presented as to the amount of time that this restriction was in place. January 22, 2010, was a Record Day, and none of the bus drivers worked that day. On Monday, January 25, 2010, Mr. Heaven went to the transportation office, where he was directed to take a random drug test. After returning from taking the drug test, Mr. Heaven was told to report to risk management for light duty. The light duty consisted of shredding papers and making up folders. School Board of Manatee County Policy 6.11(12)(c) provides: (c) Involuntary Termination: Any employee of the School Board may be terminated from employment, for just cause, including, but not limited to, immorality, misconduct in office, incompetence, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the Policies and Procedures manual of the School District of Manatee County, violation of any applicable Florida statutes, violation of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. School Board of Manatee County Policy 6.2(2)(b) provides: (b) Disciplinary Action Unauthorized leave shall constitutes willful neglect of duty and misconduct and therefore, may result in the initiation of dismissal procedures, loss of salary or such disciplinary action as may be deemed appropriate. Employees will not receive pay for unauthorized leave. Any employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the period of absence and his/her contract shall be subject to termination by the school board. Any willful absence from work without notice may be considered grounds for termination. Any absence from work without leave or excessive absence with notice may be considered grounds for termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Heaven is not guilty of misconduct, gross insubordination, and incompetency; finding that he is guilty of being absent without leave; suspending him without pay for the time that he has been suspended as of the date of this Recommended Order; and requiring forfeiture of any payments to Mr. Heaven for the days he was absent without authorized leave. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether the School District of Palm Beach County properly suspended Respondent for 15 days and, subsequently, terminated his employment for an incident at the bus facility compound on December 12, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Stipulated Facts Respondent was hired by the School District of Palm Beach County (“District”) on March 9, 2007. At all times relevant to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a School Bus Driver I at the Royal Palm Beach Transportation Facility (“Royal Palm Facility”) with the District. Employee and Labor Relations commenced an investigation on September 9, 2019, that was assigned Case No. 19/20-026. On October 29, 2019, Respondent was notified that the superintendent intended to recommend a 15-day suspension without pay and termination of Respondent’s employment to the Palm Beach County School Board (“School Board”) at the November 20, 2019, School Board meeting. On December 18, 2019, Respondent requested a hearing at DOAH regarding the suspension and termination of his employment. 1 Instead of recapping or summarizing the relevant and material testimony of witnesses, one of the parties submitted a Proposed Recommended Order with Findings of Fact that included and recited significant provisions of the hearing Transcript verbatim. This was not helpful and is contrary to the custom and practice at DOAH. This practice is discouraged in the future. Facts Presented At The Hearing The School Board operates, controls, and supervises the District, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was an experienced bus driver who had been trained in the proper method of interacting with supervisors, co-workers, and students, and exercising good professional judgment, and knew to follow certain rules, policies and directives. Respondent’s employment was governed by: a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the District and Service Employees International Union/Florida Public Services Union (“SEIU/FPSU”)(SB Ex. 77; Resp’t Ex. 11); School Board Policies (SB Exs. 70-74); Florida law (SB Ex. 75); and the School Bus Operators and Bus-Attendant Handbook (SB Ex. 76). Respondent was notified that he was being recommended for termination due to insubordination, ethical misconduct, and failure to follow policies, rules, or directives when he screamed and yelled at Senior Transportation Coordinator Cynthia Holloman (“Holloman”); used profanity, impolite language, and derogatory terms directed at Holloman which were heard by other employees as well; and left a school bus unattended in the middle of the bus driveway. SB Ex. 1; SB Ex. 4 at p. SB000022-35; and Pet’r Admin. Compl. Holloman testified at the hearing and her deposition transcript was filed. She was the senior coordinator at the Royal Palm Facility on December 12, 2018. However, the assignment of buses to the drivers was primarily handled by another employee, Bonnie Smith (“Smith”). As background, Holloman outlined that bus drivers would report to the facility in the morning to pick up their bus. If the driver’s regularly assigned bus was down or inoperative, the bus driver would be reassigned and take a substitute bus. The bus drivers were required to perform a pre-trip inspection each day to look for issues with their assigned bus. The pre-trip inspection would include, among other things, the drivers starting up their assigned bus. If the driver discovered an issue with the bus, the driver was required to fill out a form, bring it inside, and a mechanic would be assigned to fix the problem. If the problem could not be corrected, the driver would be assigned another bus. If another bus was not available, then Petitioner’s staff would assign an available driver a “double route” to cover the route. If a mechanic determined the bus was not safe to operate, then a bus would not be put on the road. Respondent testified that the morning of December 12, 2018, was an unusually cold morning. He had been assigned a bus that he believed did not have a working heater. His indirect concern with the heat not working was that the defroster linked to it would not function properly, creating a potential safety risk for the bus driver and the passengers. That morning, Respondent reported the problem with his assigned bus to Smith, and told her that he would not drive the bus in that condition. Marvin Jackson (“Jackson”), a bus driver at the Royal Palm Facility, also had a problem with the heater not functioning in his bus. Jackson testified that he would carry a rag or paper towels to wipe the windshield when driving. He took this action to operate his bus safely. Jackson indicated that on the morning of December 12, 2018, he also went into the office to complain about his heat not working properly. Leatrice Burroughs (“Burroughs”), another bus driver, testified that she also went to see Holloman on the morning of December 12, 2018, to complain about the heater on her bus not working properly. Holloman was in the dispatch office with Burroughs. Holloman was attempting to locate a bus with a functioning heater for Burroughs when Respondent arrived at the dispatch office. Holloman acknowledged that if the bus defroster was not working and the front windshield was fogging up, it would create a dangerous condition for the bus drivers. When Holloman was inside with Burroughs, Holloman heard Respondent outside raising his voice and cursing at Smith. Holloman agreed that Burroughs was in position where she could have heard Respondent using any profane or inappropriate language outside. Holloman heard Respondent cursing at Smith telling her he would not drive the bus without heat. Burroughs testified that she did not hear Respondent swearing or using any profanity. Holloman then spoke directly with Respondent and explained to him that there were no buses with heat available for him. He angrily responded and told her she was “full of sh_t,” in front of Burroughs. Burroughs denied hearing Respondent say that.2 Holloman related that during this same conversation Respondent, told her to “go f_ck herself” and that she instructed him to punch out and go home. Holloman also stated that Respondent called her a “b_tch,” and said he would park his bus and “sit on the clock.” When Holloman asked him if he was refusing to do his route that morning he replied “I’m not gonna do my route. I’m gonna sit here and I’m gonna get paid for it.” She responded that she was not going to pay him if there was work available and he was not willing to do the work. In response, Respondent told her “to go f_ck herself.” Notably, during this encounter with Holloman, Respondent made no mention or complaint to her about any problem with the defroster, nor did he claim that the bus was unsafe to drive. 2 It was not clear from the evidence what Burroughs’s proximity was to Holloman and Respondent during this discussion. Gary Mosley (“Mosley”), one of Holloman’s supervisors, arrived at the bus facility at some point after the heated exchange began. Respondent came back into the office. Holloman claims that, in the presence of Mosley, Respondent swore at her, at which time she stood up from her desk and told him she was not afraid of him. Mosley testified. He did not recall Louis swearing at Holloman, while he was in the office. However, when he spoke with Respondent outside, Respondent admitted that he said “f_ck you” to Holloman before Mosley arrived. Holloman also stated that Jackson was sitting in a chair right outside her office and could hear everything being said, including Respondent using profanity with her. Jackson testified that he never heard Respondent use any profanity that day. Jeanette Williams, a fellow bus driver, testified that she heard Respondent say he would not drive that “piece of sh_ t” bus. Pet’r Ex. 23. Dorinda Patterson (“Patterson”), another bus driver, provided a written statement for these proceedings. Patterson said that when Respondent left the office area she heard him say he was “not driving that piece of sh_t bus,” because it was “too f_cking cold.” Casandra Joseph (“Joseph”), who was a union steward, testified. She was contacted soon after the incident by Holloman regarding Respondent’s conduct on the morning of December 12, 2018. She was already at the Royal Palm Facility that morning. She spoke to Respondent immediately after the incident. He seemed very upset, was raising his voice, yelling and cursing, and used the word “sh_t.” However, Joseph did not hear what Respondent had said to Holloman earlier. Jose Pacheco (“Pacheco”), the bus shop foreman at the facility, testified. He was responsible for maintenance of the school buses. He testified that bus drivers are supposed to conduct pre- and post-trip inspections of their buses. If a bus driver has an issue during the pre-trip inspection they are required to contact dispatch, and dispatch will contact maintenance to see if they can resolve the matter. If maintenance cannot resolve the matter, they refer the bus driver back to dispatch. Pacheco was present on December 12, 2018, when Respondent complained about the heat not working on his bus. Pacheco testified clearly and distinctly that Respondent was yelling and using profanity. Respondent drove his bus in an area of the bus driveway and left it there, obstructing other bus traffic. His testimony was consistent with the testimony of other employees and was uncontroverted. The undersigned found his recollection of the incident to be particularly unbiased, credible, and persuasive. Of significance, Louis never mentioned to Pacheco that he would not drive his bus because the bus windows would fog up making the bus unsafe. Rather, it was Pacheco’s opinion that Louis was upset because it was too cold and his bus heater did not work properly. Smith, a transportation coordinator, also testified. Smith’s responsibilities included helping bus drivers get their buses on the road, helping with directions, and assisting bus drivers with their paperwork. Smith was assigned to the Royal Palm Facility. Prior to becoming a transportation coordinator, she was a bus driver. Smith testified that on December 12, 2018, she witnessed Respondent screaming at Holloman, stating that he did not want to drive his assigned bus because it was too cold. She overheard Holloman advise Respondent that if he was not going to drive his assigned bus, then he would need to clock out. Smith testified that during his heated exchange with Holloman, Respondent said “he was not driving a f_ cking cold bus.” And then he told her to go and “f_ck herself.” She related that Respondent then said that the administration did not know “how to treat the f_ cking drivers” and that is why he was acting the way he was acting. Because Respondent refused to drive the cold bus, Smith was asked to cover Respondent’s route. However, Respondent never gave Smith any paperwork to document or support his alleged concern with the heater or defroster. Carol Bello, a bus driver assigned to the Royal Palm Facility, also testified. Although she was not certain about the date, she recalled an incident approximately two years ago. Respondent was upset, loud, verbally abusive, and calling people names. She specifically recalled him stating, “F_ck you guys, I’m not driving that piece of sh_t.” She also saw him point his finger at Smith and call her “a bitch,” while ranting and raving in the bus compound around other workers and supervisors. She acknowledged that while some occasional profanity was used by bus drivers while clowning around, people did not talk to their supervisors like that. Joseph, another bus driver, testified that she had been a bus driver for fourteen years. On December 12, 2018, she observed Respondent come out of the office yelling and cursing at Holloman in the dispatch office. Respondent went on and on, cursing at Holloman and being very disrespectful to her. Respondent, Bernard Jean Louis, testified. While he admitted that he was upset that day, he essentially denied all allegations that he cursed at Holloman, or that he refused to follow his supervisor’s instruction. The undersigned did not find this self-serving testimony to be credible or persuasive, particularly considering the contrary and distinct recollection of events by several other trustworthy and more credible witnesses. The undersigned finds that Respondent’s profanity-laced tirade went on for some time and was done in different areas of the dispatch office and the outside areas of the bus compound. It is not surprising that some employees heard parts of Respondent’s outburst, while other employees heard other parts. Nonetheless, what clearly and convincingly emerged from the incident on December 12, 2018, is that Respondent was extremely upset because it was cold and he felt that the heater in his bus did not work properly. As a result of his uncontrollable and growing anger and frustration, he resorted to yelling, arguing, and cursing at his supervisor, Holloman, and failed to follow her directions. The undersigned credits and accepts the testimony of several witnesses on these points. Upon questions from the undersigned to clarify his testimony, Respondent admitted that he had not actually tested or inspected his assigned bus that morning before confronting Holloman about the problem. Rather, he concluded that his bus had an inoperable heater based on how this same bus had operated in the past. While there was a good deal of evidence relating to questions about a drug test taken by Respondent and second-hand evidence regarding the investigative role of other school board employees, this evidence was not particularly useful or relevant in this case.3 Despite no objection by either party to this broad array of other less relevant evidence, the issues in this case are framed and limited to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, to wit: whether Respondent’s conduct or behavior on December 12, 2018, at the bus facility violated the law or school board rules or policies. Christian v. Dep’t of Health, Bd. of Chiropractic Med., 161 So. 3d. 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) and cases cited therein. 3 More directly, the School Board abandoned and did not pursue the drug test as a basis for the termination. Respondent acknowledged this in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. See Joint Pre-Hr’g Stip, § B., p. 2. To the extent other issues need to be resolved, the undersigned finds that the matter is properly before DOAH. Further, there was no persuasive evidence presented to prove that Petitioner failed to exhaust any administrative remedies, violated Respondent’s due process, or that Respondent failed to receive proper or sufficient notice of the conduct being relied upon by the School Board for his proposed suspension or termination. See generally, Fla. Bd. of Massage v. Thrall, 164 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent without pay and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire V. Danielle Williams, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles D. Thomas, Esquire Thompson & Thomas, PA 1801 Indian Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Kasha Brunson, and whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Maria Colina.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brunson has been employed by the School District since August 20, 1996. She is currently a bus attendant in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Brunson has had excellent performance evaluations. Ms. Colina has been employed by the School District since February 9, 2000. She is currently a bus operator in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Colina has had excellent performance evaluations. Both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPLAC) and the School Board. Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides: "Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause." The SPLAC agreement does not specifically define just cause, but Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides that allegations of misconduct and poor job performance, which could result in suspension without pay or termination of employment, could be investigated, and a recommendation for discipline could be made to the superintendent as a result of the investigation. Provision 7.11 of the SPLAC agreement provides: [D]isciplinary action(s) taken against SPLAC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the provisions of 7.10 of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Colina was the bus operator, and Ms. Brunson was the bus attendant on Bus 134. The bus was assigned to pick up exceptional education students on its morning route to East Lee County High School (East Lee County). The bus has approximately six rows of seats. On December 7, 2010, the bus had two stops for East Lee County and picked up students C.E., a female, and T.T., a male, for delivery to East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. are tenth-grade students; however, they are mentally delayed and function between a fourth and sixth-grade level. In late October 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been advised to keep C.E. and T.T. separated. The students were not to speak to one another, and they were not to sit together. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were not told the reason why they were to keep the students separated, and they both assumed the students had been involved in an argument. On December 7, 2010, the bus arrived at East Lee County approximately 15 minutes prior to the bell ringing. Ms. Brunson, Ms. Colina, and the two students remained on the bus while waiting for the school to open. T.T. was seated in a seat at the rear of the bus across from Ms. Brunson. C.E. was in a seat at the front of the bus directly behind Ms. Colina, five rows in front of Ms. Brunson. T.T. asked Ms. Brunson for permission to change the radio station. She gave permission, and T.T. got up and walked to the front of the bus where he changed the station on the on-board radio. In order to change the radio station, he had to reach across Ms. Colina. Instead of returning to his assigned seat, T.T. sat down next to C.E. in her seat. Neither Ms. Brunson nor Ms. Colina saw T.T. sit next to C.E. At some point, Ms. Brunson observed T.T. in the seat with C.E. She felt that something inappropriate was happening, and she called T.T. back to his seat. Ms. Brunson reported the incident to Dale Maybin (Mr. Maybin), her supervisor for that day, as soon as C.E. and T.T. left the bus. Later in the morning, she also advised Shannan Pugh (Ms. Pugh), who was the paraprofessional who was supervising C.E. and T.T. at their work site. She told Ms. Pugh that, when T.T. stood up from C.E.'s seat, she saw C.E.'s head "pop up." In addition to the East Lee County delivery, Bus 134 was assigned to a route for students at Manatee Elementary School (Manatee). The Manatee route began after the completion of the East Lee County route. On the morning of December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been assigned two additional students to the Manatee route beginning on December 9, 2010. At the time of the incident involving T.T. and C.E., both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina claim that they were doing paperwork related to the assignment of two new students. Bus drivers are given 15 minutes each morning and 15 minutes each afternoon to do a pre-trip inspection and to do paperwork. The paperwork involved in adding the two students to the bus route was minimal. The students' names would be added to the seating chart, and the students' names and I.D. numbers would be added to a Medicaid form. Once the bus arrived at Manatee where the students were to be delivered, the driver would receive additional information from the school and fill out a TR-1 form and get an emergency information card, which was to be placed in the bus. At the time of the incident on December 7, 2010, the only paperwork that needed to be done would be to add the names of the new students to the seating chart and to place the students' names and I.D. numbers on the Medicaid form. Although Ms. Colina had the responsibility of completing the paperwork, she and Ms. Brunson divided the paperwork. The longest time that it should have taken each person to do the paperwork was a couple of minutes. Respondents claim that they were unable to adequately supervise the students because of attending to paperwork is not credible. The amount of time that it would have taken to do the paperwork was minimal and should not have precluded Respondents from keeping an eye on the students. Additionally, Respondents should not have been doing their paperwork at the same time. Obviously, if both Respondents are doing paperwork at the same time, no one is watching the students. Because Respondents were doing paperwork does not relieve them of the responsibility of adequately supervising the students and keeping the students separated. The reason that C.E. and T.T. were separated stemmed from an incident in October 2010, when C.E. and T.T. had engaged in inappropriate activity during a work study program. C.E., T.T., and five other students were assigned to work off-campus at a grocery store. The students were supervised by two paraprofessionals from East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. left the area in the grocery store where they were assigned and went into the men's restroom together. C.E. admitted having sexual contact with T.T. while in the men's restroom. School officials changed the classroom and work study schedules of the two students to eliminate contact between the students. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were aware that C.E. and T.T. no longer went to the work site on the same days. No disciplinary actions were taken against the two paraprofessionals as a result of the incident at the grocery store. From late October 2010 to December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina kept C.E. and T.T. separated while on the bus, and the students did not engage in any inappropriate contact on the bus until the incident at issue. Respondents claim that they would have been more diligent in supervising the students if they had known that the reason that the students were being separated was for previous sexual misconduct. This reasoning for failure to adequately supervise is no excuse. Respondents should have adhered to their charge of keeping the students separated no matter the reason for the students being separated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that there is just cause to discipline Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina and suspending Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina without pay from March 8, 2011, to January 1, 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, what action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made are made to supplement and clarify the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' January 11, 2002, Stipulation: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent Respondent has been employed by the School Board since October of 1992. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. Respondent was initially employed as a substitute bus driver. Since March of 1993, she has held a regular school bus driver position. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was assigned to the School Board's Southwest Transportation Center (Center). Mary Murphy has been the director of the Center for the past seven years. Since August of 1999, Aned Lamboglia-Candales has been the Center's coordinator. As such, she "monitor[s] all attendance at the [C]enter" and assists Ms. Murphy in dealing with personnel problems at the Center. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was scheduled to work a total of six hours a day: three hours in the morning (morning shift) and three hours in the afternoon (afternoon shift). (In between the morning and afternoon shifts, she was off duty for several hours.) The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a school bus driver 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 covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3., of the AFSCME Contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. 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: . . . (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; . . . . 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: A. Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; . . . . Article IX, Section 4.A., of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "newly-hired employees." 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. Article IX, Section 13., of the AFSCME Contract addresses 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 is entitled, "Disciplinary Action." Section 1. of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process." 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 (1.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." 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 4. of Article XI is entitled, "Types of Separation." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any 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 10 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 up to 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-- . . . . According to Article V, Section 18., of the AFSCME Contract, the term "workday," as used in the agreement, means "the total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties." The definition of "unauthorized absence," as used in the AFSCME Contract, is found in Article V, Section 27., of the contract, which provides as follows: 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. School Board "[R]ule[s], [R]egulation[s], [and] [P]olic[ies]" As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board "rule[s] regulation[s], and [p]olic[ies]" and, if she does not, she may be disciplined.1 Among the School Board's "rule[s]" are School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01. 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. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 addresses the subject of "[a]bsences and [l]eaves." It provides, in pertinent part, that, "[e]xcept for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave." School Board drivers and aides are governed by the following "[a]ttendance [p]olicy": Drivers and aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all workdays in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule, and their contract. AUTHORIZED ABSENCES For absences to be authorized, they must be reported to the driver's or aide's Transportation Center Dispatch Office in advance. This notice shall be made at the earliest possible time, but no later than before the next scheduled report time. Even in an emergency, every possible effort must be made to inform the Dispatch Office. The supervisory staff evaluates the driver's adherence to this rule. Intent to return should be treated in the same manner. Leave forms must be completed promptly for payroll purposes. UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES Unauthorized absences are subject to disciplinary action as prescribed under existing labor contracts. If a driver or aide does not report to work within 15 minutes after the scheduled report time, or does not call in absent before the report time, the absence will be considered unauthorized. If time off is taken during a regular working school day without a supervisor's approval, this absence may also be considered unauthorized. NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCES -Drivers and aides must notify their Transportation Center[']s Dispatch Office as soon as they have determined they cannot report to work. Drivers are not to make arrangements on their own for a substitute. All arrangements must be made by the Dispatch Office. -If a driver will not be reporting for work on regular school days, the driver must call in immediately and speak with the Dispatcher, or the Field Operations Specialist. -If a driver cannot report to work because of an emergency situation, the driver must contact the Dispatch Office as soon as possible. If the situation requires a driver to leave the area, the driver should have a relative or friend contact the office for the driver. -If the absence will occur sometime in the future, the Dispatch Office should be given as much advance notification as possible. -When the Dispatch Office is contacted, an explanation for the absence should be given along with the length of absence and estimated date of return. -If the driver is off from work for more than one day, the driver must contact the office each day, prior to the report time, with a complete update of the situation. The only times the driver does not have to contact the office on a daily basis are as follows: -Admission to a hospital as a patient -Maternity leave -A doctor's work release for a specified number of days -Extended sick leave2 -Approved leave of absence -Out of town CHECK-IN POLICY -All employees are expected to arrive at work on or before their scheduled report time. -Drivers and aides will be given a five minute grace period to report to work, during which no disciplinary nor financial actions will be taken. For example, if the driver or aide is scheduled to report for work at 6:00 a.m., but signs-in by 6:05 a.m., the driver or aide will be allowed to go out on the assigned route with no repercussions. -Drivers and aides who report to work 6-15 minutes after the scheduled report times will be considered "tardy." Tardy drivers and aides will be permitted to work. However, the dispatch may assign a stand-by or substitute driver or aide to the route of the tardy employee. Drivers and aides who are more than 10 minutes late, but less than 16 minutes late, will be used as substitute drivers and aides and will not be allowed to operate their regularly assigned route. For the tardy driver or aide who was replaced by a substitute or stand-by driver or aide, such driver or aide will then be assigned as substitute for other routes needing coverage, as requirements dictate. A record will be kept documenting all tardiness. Lost time will be accumulated for tardiness and employees will be docked pay in 1/2 day increments. -Drivers and aides who report to work 16 or more minutes after the scheduled report time will be considered "absent without leave" (AWOL). These persons will not be permitted to work. They will be placed on "unauthorized leave-without pay" (ULWOP) and will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Collective Bargaining Agreement -Extenuating circumstances will be evaluated by the Center Director and, upon proper documentation, may not be held against the employee. Repeated occurrences, such as "car broke down for the third time this week," will not be considered extenuating. DOCUMENTATION It is the responsibility of the drivers and aides to report to the supervisor in order to complete and/or produce all required paperwork related to the absence on the first workday upon return to work. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in an unauthorized absence regardless of extenuating circumstances. Pre-2000-2001 Regular School Year Warnings and Conferences-for- the-Record Regarding Respondent's Attendance and Leave On December 1, 1999, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's "unauthorized absences since March of 1999." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference and what "action [would] be taken." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales' memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: CONFERENCE DATA This is your second Conference-For-The- Record during this year and it was held to review your unauthorized absences since March of 1999 when the first conference was held. . . . During this conference you were provided with a copy of your leave history and this administrator reviewed it with you. . . . Since the conference in March of 1999 you have incurred approximately thirty (30) days of unauthorized leave without pay. This administrator also informed you that this is considered excessive since the number of days worked by employees in your bargaining unit is approximately 181 days in ten months. You stated that these unauthorized absences were due to the fact that you suffer from migraine headaches, high blood pressure as well as another medical condition that requires surgery to remove some growths. The medication that you take prevents you from driving since it makes you drowsy. You also stated that you do not always go to your physician's office for treatment. You provided this administrator with documentation of one of the medications you take as well as the names of the physicians that treat you. . . . ACTION TAKEN This administrator reviewed with you Article V, Section 27 and Article XI, Section 4 of the bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and AFSCME and informed you that failure to show improvement could lead to further disciplinary action. . . . You were also instructed to provide this administrator with documentation regarding your condition or treatments. Also, whenever you have a medical appointment to provide documentation verifying those. ACTION TO BE TAKEN This administrator will continue to monitor your attendance. A supervisory referral to the district support office was not done on your behalf since Ms. Ramsby, AFSCME Representative stated on your behalf that it was not necessary. Also please remember that you have the right to append, to clarify, or to explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Among the documents appended to the memorandum were copies of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME that were referenced in the memorandum. On March 1, 1999, Respondent received a verbal warning from Ms. Lamboglia-Candales concerning Respondent's "unauthorized leave." That same day, Respondent was presented by Ms. Lamboglia-Candales with a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder reflecting that Respondent had received the aforementioned verbal warning and directing Respondent to review Article V, Section 27., and Article XI, Section 4.B., of the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME. On May 3, 2000, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales issued Respondent a written warning concerning Respondent's "unauthorized leave." When the written warning was presented to Respondent on May 23, 2000, she refused to sign it. On July 21, 2000, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales held another Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to again discuss Respondent's "unauthorized absences." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference and what "action [would] be taken." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales' memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: CONFERENCE DATA This Conference-For-The-Record was held to review your unauthorized absences since . . . August 30, 1999. It was originally scheduled for June 9, 2000 but since you were not available that day it was re- scheduled for this day. During this conference you were provided with a copy of your leave history and this administrator reviewed it with you. . . . You received a verbal warning on March 1, 2000 and a written warning on May 23, 2000. . . . Since August 30, 1999 you have incurred approximately thirty-five unauthorized days (35) of leave and twenty-five (25) authorized days. You have been absent from work a total of seventy (70) days in one school year which is approximately ten months or 181 work days for employees in your bargaining group. You stated that many of your unauthorized absences were due to the fact that you have medical problems (high blood pressure). You also stated that the medication you are taking is not keeping it under control but your physician was going to change it to see if it helped. You also mentioned that you were considering taking a temporary demotion to a bus aide position until you felt better. You presented documentation for some of the days you have been absent and this administrator reviewed it. She reminded you that all documentation regarding absences should be brought in as soon as the absence occurs and not months later. . . . ACTION TAKEN This administrator reviewed with you Article V, Section 27 and Article XI, Section 4 of the bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and AFSCME and informed you that failure to show improvement could lead to further disciplinary action. . . . She also informed you that if you decided to take the voluntary demotion to bus attendant you could discuss this with her at a later date. ACTION TO BE TAKEN This administrator will do a supervisory referral to the district support agency at this time and will continue to monitor your attendance. Also you are informed that you have the right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Among the documents appended to the memorandum were copies of the provisions of the AFSCME Contract that were referenced in the memorandum. As promised, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program on July 25, 2000, and advised Respondent of the referral on that same date. Approximately a week after the July 21, 2000, Conference-for-the-Record, Respondent told Ms. Lamboglia- Candales that her physician had changed her medication and that the new medication "was working" and her "blood pressure was fine." As a result, she told Ms. Lamboglia-Candales, she was not going to pursue the temporary demotion to bus aide that she had previously discussed with Ms. Lamboglia-Candales. The 2000-2001 School Year On February 1, 2001, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales, along with Charlie Horn, an administrative assistant at the Center, held another Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to again discuss Respondent's "unauthorized absences." Mr. Horn subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference and what "action [would] be taken." Mr. Horn's memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: CONFERENCE DATA This is your second Conference-For-The- Record in the past twelve months during this year and it was held to review your unauthorized absences since July 21, 2000 when the other conference was held. . . . During this conference you were provided with a copy of your leave history and Ms. Candales reviewed it with you. Since the conference on July 21, 2000 you have incurred approximately fifteen (15) days of unauthorized leave without pay. Ms. Candales informed you that this is considered excessive since the number of days worked by employees in your bargaining unit is approximately 181 days in ten months. You stated that these unauthorized absences were due to dentist and court appointments. You provided Ms. Candales with documentation to review. . . . Ms. Candales reviewed it in your presence and determined that approximately 15 days of unauthorized leave could have been authorized had you presented the documentation at the time the absence occurred. ACTION TAKEN Ms. Candales reviewed with you Article V, Section 27 and Article XI, Section 4 of the bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and AFSCME and informed you that failure to show improvement could lead to further disciplinary action. . . . You were once again instructed to provide Ms. Candales with documentation regarding your appointments and/or absences. It is important that you present your documentation in a timely manner meaning as soon as the absence occurs and not months later. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Ms. Candales will continue to monitor your attendance. A supervisory referral to the district support agency will not be done at this time. Also, please remember that you have the right to append, to clarify, or to explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Among the documents appended to the memorandum were copies of the provisions of the AFSCME Contract that were referenced in the memorandum. On March 29, 2001, the Center's director, Ms. Murphy, held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss "her job performance as related to [her] attendance." Ms. Murphy subsequently prepared (on April 23, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on May 3, 2001) a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Ms. Murphy's memorandum read as follows: A Conference-For-The-Record was held in the office of the director of Southwest Regional Transportation Center on Thursday, March 29, 2001. The following were in attendance, Ms. Linda Hogans, Bus Driver, Ms. Joyce Moore, AFSCME, Ms. Carolyn Ransby, AFSCME, Ms. Dorothy Ferguson, Administrative Assistant, and Ms. Mary E. Murphy. The purpose of this conference was to review your job performance as related to your attendance. You were given a copy of your leave history, which was reviewed during the conference. Since the beginning of this school year, you have accumulated 27 unauthorized absences. The original total was 44 days and after reviewing the medical documentation you provided during the conference, the amount of days was changed to a total of 27 unauthorized days. Ms. Moore questioned the conference held by Mr. Horn and Ms. Candales when you presented documentation but Ms. Candales did not accept the documents. The days have been approved and the total days have changed again to 15 and a half unauthorized days without pay. You were asked why you had accumulated so many unauthorized days? Ms. Moore stated that at one time you were caring for a cousin who could not care for [her]self. This cousin later died. Also, you had [a] death in the family and you have been injured on the job, which plays a big part with your absences. You indicated that you have high blood pressure and you doctor tried several different medications to maintain control. You indicated that there are times when you do not feel well so you stay home. I asked if your doctor supplied you with notes? You indicated that the doctor would give you some notes but not all of the time. I explained that when you present documentation, those days would be authorized. Ms. Moore asked if you had previous conferences. I answered yes that Ms. Hogan[s] has had a couple of conferences. During one of the conferences held by Ms. Candales, you were advised to present documentation directly to her so your absences could be authorized. Ms. Candales held a conference with Ms. Hogan[s] on July 21, 2000. This conference was held during the summer months but the conference did not include unauthorized days accumulated during the summer. Ms. Ferguson stated that the conference was held in July because several attempts were made to have the conference in June and Ms. Candales was not able to conduct the conference due to the amount of days you were off. During the conference you were directed to: To come to work and be on time. If you need to be off, present documentation to Ms. Candales or myself. If either the Coordinator or Director is not available, give the documentation to the Administrative Assistant on duty. You signed a supervisory referral to the District Support Agency. You were told that the summary of this conference would be forwarded to Mr. Jerry Klein, Administrative Director and the Office of Professional Standards for review for possible disciplinary actions not excluding dismissal. Also you were informed that you have the right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Ms. Moore stated that going to District support is not all bad [in] that the district has many programs to help employees. It is not just for disciplinary problems. I mentioned that during the yearly in-service District Support is discussed and explained to the employees. Ms. Moore stated that in the in-service meeting there is so much noise that no one can hear. Ms. Hogan[s] said that she was not aware of the program. I checked her file and found out that Ms. Candales referred Ms. Hogan[s] in July 5, 2000. Ms. Hogan[s] declined to participate. By signing (on March 29, 2001) the "supervisory referral to the District Support Agency" mentioned in Ms. Murphy's memorandum, Ms. Hogans signified that she had "been advised of the referral." Following the March 29, 2001, Conference-for-the- Record, Respondent continued to have unauthorized absences. On June 7, 2001, Barbara Moss, a district director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss her absenteeism and her "future employment status" with the School Board. Ms. Moss subsequently prepared and then mailed to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In the "Action To Be Taken" portion of the memorandum, Ms. Moss stated the following: Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Associate Superintendent of School Operations, the Administrative Director of Transportation, and the Director of Southwest Transportation Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys will be requested. Receipt of their legal review, with endorsement by the Associate Superintendent, will compel formal notification of the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action(s) shall be consistent with the concepts and practice of progressive or corrective discipline. The degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. You were apprised of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. Ms. Moss provided Respondent the opportunity, following the Conference-for-the Record, to present documentation concerning any unauthorized absence that Respondent believed should be excused. Respondent took advantage of this opportunity and provided Ms. Moss with five or six letters from the Office of the Miami-Dade State Attorney asking that Respondent's absence from work on various dates be excused because she was "subpoenaed to the Office of the State Attorney" on those dates in connection with a criminal case, State v. China Wilson, Case No F00-21153, in which she was an "essential witness." Upon reviewing the letters, Ms. Moss noticed that there were "obvious" alterations on "a couple of the letters." Dates had been typed in over "white-out" and they "were jammed together." Ms. Moss faxed to the Office of the Miami-Dade State Attorney copies of all of the letters she had received from Respondent following the June 7, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record and inquired whether these letters were authentic. Ms. Moss was told by the assistant state attorney assigned to the State v. China Wilson case that "there was only one letter that was authentic." Ms. Moss subsequently met with Respondent, who was accompanied during the meeting by the senior vice president of AFSCME, Christine Harris, and an AFSCME shop steward, Charlie Lynch. Ms. Moss "showed them the [letters she had received from Respondent] and let them know that [the School Board was] moving forward with dismissal." In response to this advisement, either Respondent or Ms. Harris indicated that Respondent wanted to resign in lieu of being terminated and that she would like to have the aforementioned letters returned to her. Ms. Moss gave Respondent back the letters (without making copies of them). Respondent then left. A few minutes later, Respondent returned and indicated that she was "rescind[ing] her offer to resign." On August 10, 2001, the Superintendent of Schools sent a letter to Respondent advising her that he was recommending that the School Board, at its scheduled meeting on August 22, 2001, "suspend [her] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [her] effective the close of the workday, August 22, 2001, for just cause, including, but not limited to: excessive absenteeism; non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities; and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves." At its August 22, 2001, meeting, the School Board took the action recommended by the Superintendent of Schools. On more than one occasion during the 2000-2001 regular school year, Respondent had three or more consecutive workdays of unauthorized absences. The regular school year workdays during the 12-month period ending June 1, 2001, on which Respondent had unauthorized absences include (in addition to those set forth in the parties' January 11, 2002, Stipulation) the following: June 6, 2000 (whole day); June 9, 2000 (whole day); November 9, 2000 (whole day); December 15, 2000 (whole day); January 30, 2001 (half day); February 5, 2001 (whole day); May 25, 2001 (half day); May 30, 2001 (whole day); May 31, 2001 (whole day); and June 1, 2001 (whole day). Respondent also had numerous authorized absences (with and without pay) during the 12-month period ending June 1, 2001. From August 24, 2000, through May 24, 2001, she had 41 1/2 workdays of authorized absences without pay and ten and a half workdays of authorized absences with pay. Many of the authorized absences without pay were initially unauthorized absences, but they were converted to authorized absences without pay following the review of documentation provided by Respondent. The refusal of School Board administrators to excuse any additional unauthorized absences was within their sound discretion. They were under no obligation to do so. They acted reasonably, given Respondent's failure to present in a timely manner credible documentation demonstrating that these additional unauthorized absences were the result of extenuating circumstances and further considering Respondent's pattern of excessive absences. Respondent's excessive absences had an adverse impact on the Center's operations. As Ms. Murphy explained during her testimony (at page 158 of the hearing transcript): "[W]henever . . . a driver has a route and [the driver] take[s] off, then we have to place a substitute or a stand-by driver on it. And whenever that occurs, the route automatically runs late, because the regular driver[] knows the route better than the substitute driver or stand-by driver[].
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 pursuant Article XI, Section 4.B., of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment contract due to repeated acts of harassment, gross insubordination, and violations of Petitioner's policies.
Findings Of Fact Until her last day of work on March 15, 2004, Respondent had worked for over 13 years at Stanley Switlik Elementary School (Switlik) in Marathon. Switlik is a public school. For most of her career with Petitioner, Respondent worked as an aid in the exceptional student education (ESE) prekindergarten program. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent worked as a 1:1 aid to a student in a varying exceptionalities class. At all material times, Respondent was classified as noncertified instructional staff. For at least the past couple of years, Respondent was dissatisfied by much of what took place around her at work and in the local education community. In the past two years, Respondent has filed complaints with three federal agencies (Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), two state agencies (Department of Education and Department of Children and Family Services), and one local agency (Petitioner). The 13 subjects of these complaints include two principals of Switlik, two superintendents of Monroe County Public Schools, various teachers and teacher aids, and a relative of her husband. The record discloses no basis for finding any merit whatsoever in any of these complaints. In June 2002, Respondent walked into a classroom at the Grace Jones Day Care Center, which is a not-for-profit school in Respondent’s neighborhood, and entered a class with sleeping preschool children. Respondent approached the new director of Grace Jones and confronted her about the school's curriculum. The bewildered director spoke to Respondent for a few moments before realizing that Respondent had no children at the school. In the ensuing weeks, Respondent continued to challenge the director about the school’s curriculum, warning her that she needed to change the curriculum or Respondent would shut down the school. One time, Respondent warned the director that “you better watch your white ass.” Seeing the director smoking a cigarette on school grounds during breaks, Respondent began videotaping the director from the street to document what Respondent viewed as illegal behavior. The purpose of Respondent’s actions is unclear, but does not seem to have been the betterment of the educational program at Grace Jones. When children in the custody of a relative of her husband attended Grace Jones, Respondent never volunteered to help at the school. However unclear the purpose of Respondent’s actions, their effect was to frighten the director, the teachers, and the students and disrupt the educational process at the school. The director eventually obtained a judicial order prohibiting Respondent from trespassing onto the Grace Jones grounds. Respondent repeatedly involved herself with the education of the two children who were in the custody of a relative of Respondent's husband. When one of the children was later attending Switlik, while Respondent was employed at the school, Respondent telephoned the child’s guardian and informed her that the child had been misbehaving in school. When the guardian called the principal, the principal stated that the child had not been misbehaving. Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion directly to the child’s guardian. Later, in January 2004, Respondent informed the guardian and the guardian’s sister, who is the biological mother of the children, that Switlik was failing one of the children. Again, Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion. Despite receiving a warning from the principal not to disclose confidential student information, Respondent continued to try to obtain educational information about these children, even though she had no right to such information. Frustrated that the guardian would not remove one or both of the children from Switlik, Respondent threatened to call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use. Although she may never have followed through on this threat, she did call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the children’s biological mother was residing with them and the guardian, evidently in violation of some sort of prohibition against this living arrangement. The record permits no findings as to whether the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use or the biological mother was residing with her children and the guardian, but the record permits the finding that, in both cases, the intention of Respondent in threatening to call or calling the authorities was not to correct an intolerable situation, but was to coerce the guardian to accede to Respondent's demands. While employed at Switlik, Respondent had numerous confrontations with numerous employees, including superiors. Two of the more prominent confrontations involved Respondent’s confrontation with a school bus driver, who occupied a managerial role at Switlik as to transportation, and two aids, who worked in a Head Start prekindergarten classroom at Switlik. These incidents occurred during the 2002-03 school year. The problem with the school bus driver began in 2002. Escorting one or more children to or from the school buses, as was her responsibility, Respondent entered a bus loaded with children and began directing them to sit down. When the bus driver, who was on the bus, told Respondent to leave the bus, Respondent angrily accused the bus driver of failing to discharge her duty to protect the safety of the children. After receiving complaints from the driver about Respondent and from Respondent about the driver and the students standing in the bus, the principal met with Respondent and told her not to interfere with the bus driver and her supervision of the students already on the bus. Despite the warning, Respondent later engaged in a nearly identical confrontation during the 2002-03 school year. When the principal sided again with the bus driver, Respondent demanded a meeting with the superintendent to discuss her problems with the bus driver and, now, the principal. Ignored by the superintendent, Respondent contacted a school board member and asked for a meeting. Obtaining no satisfaction from the school board member, Respondent contacted the United States Department of Education, Civil Rights Office, and Florida Department of Education with her complaints about the bus driver and the refusal of Petitioner's representatives to resolve the situation. The problem with the Head Start aids initially involved their choice of classroom attire. They wore shorts, which Respondent considered to be cut too short. Possibly arising out of Respondent's frustration at not being allowed to wear a head scarf at school, Respondent complained to the principal that the two women were allowed to wear shorts. A picture of the shorts revealed that they were not suggestive or inappropriate in length or style. To the contrary, shorts permitted the aids to perform the physical activity imposed upon them in working with young children. After Respondent complained about the aids' shorts, the aids began to lock the classroom door to prevent Respondent from taking a short-cut through the room when students were present. Respondent complained about this, but, again, the principal sided with the aids and directed Respondent to stop cutting through the occupied classroom--a directive that Respondent repeatedly ignored. Twice bested by the aids, Respondent pressed her complaints about them to higher authorities. Respondent informed the Monroe County director of Head Start of the problem. When the county director referred Respondent back to the principal, Respondent threatened to contact the Southeast Director of Head Start in Atlanta and government representatives in Washington. On October 8, 2003, the principal and other of Respondent's employees, including the Human Relations Director, participated in a meeting requested by Respondent to discuss her concerns about events that had taken place at Switlik over a period of time. At some point, the principal warned Respondent about her disruption of the school environment and her confrontational behavior. The principal warned that Respondent's unprofessional behavior would lead to termination. Respondent became belligerent and loudly denounced the Human Relations Director as a liar. Two days later, Respondent refused to sign a memorandum outlining what had taken place at the meeting. The above incidents are largely drawn from Respondent's testimony. However, there were numerous other confrontations, such as with an office manager who asked that Respondent wait a moment before the woman could get her paycheck or repeated abuse of school email to hector Petitioner's employees. There were also numerous other examples of insubordination, such as Respondent's refusal to sign a statement acknowledging Petitioner's anti-harassment policy and her refusal to sign her evaluation at the end of the 2002-03 school year, which warned that her noncompliance with Petitioner's policies was disrupting school operations. Dissatisfied with the resolution of all of these matters, Respondent also filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about at least some of them. Two principals over several years have tried patiently to counsel Respondent regarding her strident, uncooperative behavior. At meetings, Respondent routinely took the offensive, yelling and denouncing the participants by, among other things, claiming that the current principal was not doing her job. An endless pattern of complaints about problems perceived by no one but Respondent preceded complaints about never-commenced or incorrectly resolved investigations. The disruption upon the educational process was evident and substantial. Respondent has not been chastened by less severe job actions than termination. When Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days from April 30 to May 2, 2003, Respondent's response, upon her return to work, was to file a complaint about the principal and, after a month of inaction on her complaint, to email the superintendent and demand to know the status of his investigation of her complaint. Failing to obtain a satisfactory response from the superintendent, Respondent submitted complaints about the principal and superintendent to the Florida Department of Education. Finally, on August 14, 2003, Respondent emailed the School Board members and asked for a meeting about this problem. By undated letter in February or March 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised Respondent that she was suspended with pay until the School Board meeting of April 1, 2004, at which he would recommend termination. The letter states that Respondent has violated Sections 1012.27(5) and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, The Code of Ethics for Education Professionals, and Petitioner's policies 6.37, 6.38, 2.70, 3.40, and 5.70. By letter dated March 22, 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised that he would recommend at the April 1 School Board meeting that it convert Respondent's suspension with pay to a suspension without pay, pending final action on his recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment. Petitioner's policy 6.37 provides that Petitioner's superintendent may suspend an employee until the next meeting of the School Board. The policy provides a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to any employee who has a property interest in his or her job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John Padget, Superintendent Monroe County School Board Post Office Box 1788 Key West, Florida 33041-1788 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Scott E. Siverson Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Scott C. Black Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue Whether the Petitioner established just cause for the termination of Respondent’s employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the state entity designated to operate, control, and maintain the public school system. The School Board’s power includes the authority to enter into labor contracts and to terminate educational support personnel. Ms. Stevenson began working for the School District in 2003 as a school bus assistant, and eventually became a school bus driver in August 2004. A review of Ms. Stevenson’s performance assessments show that she was a good employee for the time period leading up to the incidents that are the subject of this hearing. For example, Ms. Stevenson’s Performance Assessment conducted for the July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, states that: Ms. Stevenson shows great leadership and pays great attention to detail. She shows respect towards her students, her school and her fellow employees. Ms. Stevenson is always in uniform and shows great professionalism both on and off the clock. Ms. Stevenson is very passionate about her work and takes great pride in doing a great job. It is a pleasure and honor working with Ms. Stevenson. The incidents that are subject of this final hearing occurred during the following school year for 2013-2014. On April 25, 2014, Ms. Stevenson was driving her school bus route, returning the students to their homes. Shortly after beginning the bus route, Ms. Stevenson began to feel sharp pains in her chest. Ms. Stevenson made her first bus stop, and then radioed the School District’s bus dispatch for help. She had stopped the bus in a safe location and was told to wait for Emergency Management Services (EMS) paramedics. Ms. Beatrice Aney, an assistant supervisor at the School District’s Leonard Transportation Compound (bus depot), was notified about Ms. Stevenson’s call. EMS was contacted, and the School District sent another bus to finish the route, and Ms. Aney to assist. The paramedics arrived at the scene and began to evaluate Ms. Stevenson’s condition. Near that same time, Ms. Aney arrived and boarded the school bus in order to watch the children, as the paramedics helped Ms. Stevenson. The paramedics determined that Ms. Stevenson needed to be transported to the local hospital for further evaluation. Ms. Stevenson was reluctant to leave the bus in the ambulance, and expressed her concern about being able to retrieve her car keys and pick her child up from daycare on time. Ms. Stevenson believed that the paramedics had spoken with Ms. Aney, and that Ms. Aney had promised that Ms. Stevenson would be picked up from the hospital. In the confusion of the bus, Ms. Aney did not hear or make any promise to Ms. Stevenson about transporting Ms. Stevenson from the hospital. At approximately 3:45 p.m., Ms. Stevenson was admitted into the hospital. She was diagnosed as having a panic attack, and was administered Xanex for anxiety. According to the hospital record and Ms. Stevenson’s testimony, she was released from the hospital at approximately 5:15 p.m. After Ms. Stevenson was transported to the hospital, Ms. Aney returned to the bus depot. Another school bus had been dispatched and finished Ms. Stevenson’s school bus route. Following her discharge from the hospital, Ms. Stevenson called the bus depot seeking a ride from the hospital back to the depot. Ms. Luvenia Brown answered the phone. The bus dispatch office was described as a busy place, and Ms. Aney was working with the many different driver requests. At the time Ms. Stevenson called, Ms. Aney was sitting across from Ms. Brown, who answered the phone. Ms. Brown, holding the phone receiver with Ms. Stevenson on the line, asked Ms. Aney about transporting Ms. Stevenson from the hospital. Ms. Aney stated that she did not have anyone who could pick up Ms. Stevenson at that moment. Ms. Stevenson overhearing the conversation between Ms. Brown and Ms. Aney stated “f**k it, she would walk,” and then hung up. Unfortunately, in Ms. Stevenson’s anger, she did not speak with either Ms. Aney or Ms. Brown before hanging up the phone. Had Ms. Stevenson waited a moment, she would have learned that Ms. Aney was going to drive to the hospital to pick up Ms. Stevenson. Ms. Aney’s statement that she did not have anyone who could transport Ms. Stevenson related to the fact that she did not have an available driver. Ms. Stevenson left the hospital angry, and began walking what would have been approximately a six-mile trip from the hospital. As she was walking, Ms. Stevenson was seen by Ms. Niurka Diaz, a fellow school bus driver who recognized Ms. Stevenson. Ms. Diaz had heard about Ms. Stevenson’s illness on the bus radio, and had already completed her school bus route. Ms. Diaz stopped her bus, and offered Ms. Stevenson a ride. At this point, Ms. Stevenson had walked approximately four-tenths of a mile from the hospital. While Ms. Stevenson was enroute to the bus depot, Ms. Aney had left for the hospital in order to transport Ms. Stevenson. Ms. Stevenson arrived at the school bus depot angry, and she walked into the dispatch office. Upon entering the office, Ms. Stevenson began a prolonged, profane tirade stating, in essence, that her co-workers did not care what happened to her, and then threatening “where the f**k is Beatrice? I am going to beat her a**.” During Ms. Stevenson’s outburst, she grabbed at papers on the wall and crumpled them. Within a few minutes, Ms. Stevenson exited the dispatch office and then entered the bus driver lounge. She continued to yell profanities in the hallway and doorway of the bus driver lounge. One of the drivers, Ms. Tomeika Harris, Ms. Stevenson’s friend, attempted to find out what was wrong. Ms. Harris reached for Ms. Stevenson’s arm. The video and testimony show that Ms. Stevenson flailed her right arm upward in order to throw off Ms. Harris’ hand. Consequently, when Ms. Harris’ hand was thrown off Ms. Stevenson’s arm, Ms. Harris’ cell phone was damaged. At the time Ms. Stevenson reacted, she was so angry that she did not recognize that it was Ms. Harris, her friend, who had reached to touch her. Subsequently, Ms. Stevenson learned that she had damaged Ms. Harris’ cell phone, and has since replaced it. Ms. Stevenson exited the bus driver lounge into the parking lot. Ms. Black, another school bus driver and friend of Ms. Stevenson, saw her in the parking lot. Ms. Stevenson continued a profane tirade that no one cared about her, and how she had been left at the hospital. Ms. Black attempted to calm her friend down, and Ms. Stevenson subsequently left the bus depot in order to pick up her daughter from daycare. During Ms. Stevenson’s outburst, Ms. Aney was at the hospital looking for Ms. Stevenson. When she could not find Ms. Stevenson, Ms. Aney called the dispatch office and spoke with Ms. Karen Lane. Ms. Lane told Ms. Aney that Ms. Stevenson was at the bus depot and that Ms. Aney needed to return immediately. By the time that Ms. Aney returned, approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, Ms. Stevenson had already left the premises. The School District did not contact any law enforcement agency concerning Ms. Stevenson’s outburst and threats made against Ms. Aney on April 25, 2014. The School District began an investigation into Ms. Stevenson’s conduct at the school bus depot. The investigator, Mr. Andrew Brown, learned from one of Ms. Stevenson’s supervisors that Ms. Stevenson had been involved in a prior incident on January 30, 2014. Mr. Brown was provided a video taken on the bus driven by Ms. Stevenson on January 30, 2014. This January 30, 2014, video, with its audio, shows Ms. Stevenson losing her temper and verbally berating a third-grader because Ms. Stevenson perceived that the third-grader had been disrespectful to her. Further, the video shows Ms. Stevenson yelling at all of the students and warning them about being disrespectful to her. Following her verbal tirade, Ms. Stevenson turned down the bus radio and called the school bus dispatch on her cell phone while driving the bus. Ms. Stevenson falsely reported that she had tried to call the dispatch on her bus radio, and that she wanted dispatch to inform the school that the identified student had been disrespectful to her and that she would be speaking to the student’s mother. Finally, the video shows that at the student’s stop, Ms. Stevenson informed the student’s mother that the child had been disrespectful, rolling her eyes and had “jumped at her.” The video did not support Ms. Stevenson’s characterization of the third-grader’s actions as “jump[ing] at her.” After a parent complaint, the School District reviewed the video and suspended Ms. Stevenson as a school bus driver for three days. Ms. Stevenson’s evaluation indicated that Ms. Stevenson was suspended for using the cell phone while driving. Ms. Stevenson testified that her suspension also was the result of her behavior on the bus in addition to the cell phone use. Certainly, the School District in suspending Ms. Stevenson took into account her inexcusable verbal berating of a third grader on the bus when it suspended her. The fact that Ms. Stevenson used a cell phone while driving the school bus could only have been learned by watching the video. As stated earlier, the video shows Ms. Stevenson’s inappropriate behavior directed to the student, and her inappropriate driving while talking on the cell phone. Consequently, the undersigned finds that the School District was aware of Ms. Stevenson’s outburst on the school bus on January 30, 2014, when it suspended her for three days. Finally, it is agreed by the parties that Ms. Stevenson was directed by her supervisor, after the January 30, 2014, incident, to act courteously and cooperatively in the future. Ms. Stevenson’s unrebutted testimony shows that in 2013 and 2014 she was a victim of domestic violence, and had in place a domestic violence injunction against her husband. Ms. Stevenson explained that her difficult situation spilled over into her work life causing her anger and anxiety. Prior to her suspension, Ms. Stevenson sought help with Employee Assistance Program counseling concerning her anxiety. However, she has not been able to consistently continue with the counseling based on financial difficulties. During this past school year, Ms. Stevenson has driven a bus for a private transportation company that provides bus services for charter schools without any further incident. She has expressed remorse for her actions, and stated a desire to return as a Lee County School District school bus driver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The School Board established “just cause” for disciplining Ms. Stevenson’s employment based on the finding that she is guilty of “misconduct in office,” for violating article 7.13, and School Board Policies 2.02, 4.09, and 5.02; Ms. Stevenson be suspended without pay from July 1, 2014 until the beginning of the January 2015 term; and As a condition of continued employment, Ms. Stevenson successfully complete an Employee Assistance Program concerning anger and stress management, and successfully complete training concerning effective communication. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 29th day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent engaged in violence in the workplace, breached the responsibilities and duties of an employee, and imposed physical discipline in violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07; and, if so, whether Petitioner should suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay from her position as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for operating public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the District), and disciplining employees within the District when necessary. Petitioner employs Respondent as a school bus driver within the District subject to rules and regulations of the School Board promulgated pursuant to Section 1012.23, Florida Statutes (2002); and subject to the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (the Contract). Petitioner has employed Respondent as a school bus driver within the District for approximately ten years. Petitioner trains school bus drivers, including Respondent, in procedures to follow when students become disruptive or unruly while traveling in a school bus. Petitioner directs drivers to stop the school bus on the side of the road until the students calm down. If necessary, the driver must then radio or telephone a supervisor or the police for further assistance. On October 8, 2002, Respondent drove a school bus for the purpose of taking students home following an after school activity at Coral Reef Senior High School. Respondent was substituting for the regular bus driver. It was dark, and Respondent was unfamiliar with the bus route. Respondent drove the school bus in a manner that endangered the physical safety of the students in the bus. Respondent instructed the students to walk to the front of the bus when their stop was near and to tell Respondent where to stop the bus. Respondent repeatedly applied the brakes of the bus with sufficient force that the students, who stood in the aisle to give Respondent instructions, were thrown into the seats or forward in the aisle. Respondent engaged in other behavior that endangered the physical safety of the students. Respondent's driving pattern of abrupt stops continued until only a few students remained on the bus. One student, identified in the record as C.C., became angry when Respondent missed the student's stop. When C.C. was stepping down to get off the bus, C.C. realized she had dropped her purse, asked Respondent to turn on the light, and Respondent complied. C.C. walked back up the steps of the bus to retrieve her purse and called Respondent a "bitch." Respondent responded by saying, "You a bitch." Respondent violated relevant procedures for defusing disruptive situations, endangered students riding on the bus, and threatened students. Contemporaneously with the exchange between Respondent and C.C., Respondent stopped the bus in the middle of the road, rather than the side of the road and turned off the engine. Respondent did not attempt to defuse the situation and did not contact a supervisor or the police. Rather, Respondent unbuckled her seat belt, approached C.C., and participated in a physical altercation with C.C. Respondent's conduct exposed other students in the school bus to physical harm. The other students came forward to separate Respondent and C.C. A student identified in the record as Z.G. tried to grab Respondent from behind, and female students tried to stop C.C. Respondent threw her walkie-talkie at C.C., but hit Z.G. No student other than C.C. hit Respondent. Respondent threatened the students riding on the school bus at the time of the altercation with C.C. Respondent stated that she was going to "kill" the students and that she had a son who was going to "bury" them. Respondent sat down in the driver's seat and drove the school bus to the Cutler Ridge Police Station. Respondent told police that the students on the bus attacked her. At the police station, Respondent did not telephone the supervisor on duty for the District. Rather, Respondent telephoned her daughter and Ms. Shirley Morris, a coworker and friend (Morris). Morris paged Aned Lamboglia (Lamboglia), the supervisor on duty. Lamboglia spoke to Respondent by telephone. Lamboglia was surprised at the assertion that students on the school bus attacked Respondent because incidents involving a student attacking a bus driver are "extremely rare." A suspension without pay for 30 days is reasonable under the circumstances. Although violence in the workplace is an egregious offense that is aggravated because it involves students, Respondent has no prior history of discipline. There is no pattern of violent behavior. The proposed penalty is consistent with the progressive discipline agreed to in the Contract. Other than this incident, Respondent has an exemplary work history, and Petitioner does not wish to lose Respondent as an employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and suspending Respondent from her employment for 30 days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Mary Jill Hanson, Esquire Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. 105 South Narcissus Avenue, Suite 510 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Melinda L. McNichols, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394
