The Issue Whether Respondent, Kelly Services, Inc., engaged in a discriminatory employment practice and/or retaliated against Petitioner, Harry Boggs.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that Mr. Boggs suffers from a qualifying handicap, namely, Autism, under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”). Kelly Services concedes this point.3 Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Mr. Boggs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly Services engaged in employment discrimination against him on the basis of his handicap. OCPS forbade Kelly Services from allowing Mr. Boggs to act as a substitute teacher in any of its schools because he violated its policy by failing to report his 2016 arrest. Mr. Boggs also violated Kelly Services’ policies by failing to report the arrest. Although his handicap may have contributed to the arrest, the weight of the credible evidence did not prove that the handicap caused him to violate these employment policies. Further, similarly situated employees who did not have a known handicap but failed to report arrests were also precluded from serving as substitute teachers; in fact, all but one of them was terminated. Although Kelly Services had reasonable, nondiscriminatory grounds to terminate Mr. Boggs, it did not do so. Instead, it offered to accommodate him by moving him to the commercial division. But, he rejected that 3 In July 2019, Mr. Boggs underwent another psychological evaluation by a licensed clinical psychologist as part of his application for vocational rehabilitation with the Department of Education. The psychologist diagnosed him with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the death of his mother and resulting eviction, and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. accommodation and demanded instead to be reinstated as a substitute teacher in OCPS—a demand that Kelly Services lacked authority to meet. Mr. Boggs could make that choice, but doing so undermines any claim that Kelly Services failed to accommodate him as a result of his handicap. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Kelly Services also did not engage in retaliation against Mr. Boggs for disclosing his handicap. To the contrary, the evidence established that Mr. Boggs violated the policies of OCPS and Kelly Services by failing to report his arrest, which resulted in his deactivation as a substitute teacher irrespective of his handicap. And, though Kelly Services had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate Mr. Boggs entirely, it nevertheless offered to accommodate him through its commercial division. That offer treated Mr. Boggs better than his similarly situated counterparts who were terminated for similar violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Harry Boggs, failed to establish that Respondent, Kelly Services, committed an unlawful employment practice against him and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S ANDREW D. MANKO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2020. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Harry Scott Boggs General Delivery Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Misbah Shahid, Esquire Kelly Services 999 West Big Beaver Road, 2nd Floor Troy, Michigan 48084 Daniel P. Hart, Esquire Seyfarth Shaw, L.P. 1075 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct with students and colleagues during the 1996-97 school year, having received a Letter of Reprimand on September 22, 1997. Whether Respondent violated various provisions of the Principles of Professional Conduct during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or suspended or other penalty imposed as provided by law, for gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the exhibits received into evidence, the stipulation of the parties, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Education Practices Commission has the authority to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person holding a Florida Educator's Certificate for violation of Florida laws and rules. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 537304, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Middle Grade Math, and which is valid through June 30, 1999. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed by Orange County School District as a teacher at Union Park Middle School. April Cook, now 14, had Respondent as a math and English teacher when she was in the sixth grade. On one occasion, during the 1996-97 school year, while April was attending Respondent's class, Respondent was talking to the class about a "higher power" and raised her hand using her middle finger stating that this referred to the higher power. April interpreted this hand gesture to mean "fuck you" and was "stunned" by Respondent's conduct in the classroom. Ricky Souza, now 14, had Respondent as his sixth grade language arts teacher and seventh grade math teacher. On one occasion while Ricky was attending Respondent's class, Respondent was talking to the class about how she praised God and raised her hand using her middle finger in the same manner observed by Cook. Ricky was "offended" by Respondent's hand gesture, although Respondent stated that God was a good force. Respondent was not a popular teacher while at Union Park Middle School and students were regularly disrespectful in class and would spread rumors about her throughout the school. Rebecca Jones and Carol Pickler are teachers at Union Park Middle School. Mrs. Jones has been a teacher for 18 years, Mrs. Pickler, 32 years. On one occasion during the 1996-97 school year, while Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Pickler were in the hallway of the school talking, Respondent approached them and stated: "Every time I see the two of you, I'd like to beat the shit out of both of you." She then turned and walked down the hallway. No provocation for the statement has been established. However, no students were in the area to hear the remark. Diane Lovett was the principal at Union Park Middle School during the relevant time period. She has been a teacher and administrator for 10 years. Her responsibilities include evaluation of teachers, observations of teachers and handling disciplinary matters. While principal at Union Park, Mrs. Lovett observed Respondent teach on several occasions. During these observations Respondent's teaching seemed to be "scattered discourse." On one occasion, Lovett heard the Respondent threaten her students by telling them that the FBI would come and take them to jail if they did not behave. Mrs. Lovett also observed Respondent, while holding her hand up and counting on all of her fingers, use her middle finger in the same manner described by April Cook and Ricky Sousa. She alluded to the third finger as being an example of the higher power. Parents reported to Mrs. Lovett that they were offended by the hand gesture made by Respondent, as reported to them by students. Respondent used hand gestures in the classroom which were misinterpreted by the students. Mrs. Lovett counseled Respondent about the hand gesture and told her that it was an obscene gesture and that she should not use it in the classroom. After Mrs. Lovett counseled Respondent about her using the hand gesture, Mrs. Lovett observed Respondent use the gesture in the classroom again by referring to the middle finger as the higher power. On another occasion, Mrs. Lovett went to Respondent's classroom. When Mrs. Lovett arrived, Respondent was very distraught. Respondent was screaming at a student and pointing in the face of one of the students because she thought the student's book bag was not placed properly under his desk. Respondent stated that she could not take it anymore. Other students in the classroom observed Respondent's behavior and they were "on the verge of tears." Respondent used acrostics often in the classroom. One acrostic was to use the word "Christ" to spell out a positive message. Linda Lovell is the bookkeeper at Union Park Middle School. Mrs. Lovell has been at Union Park for 14 years. On one occasion, Respondent directed one of her students to take a document to Mrs. Lovell and ask her to send the document to the address by fax. Mrs. Lovell told the student to inform Respondent that she (Mrs. Lovell) could not fax the document, but that she would show Respondent how to use the fax machine. Later that afternoon, Respondent went to the front office where Mrs. Lovell's office was located and engaged in a verbal altercation with Lovell, at whom Respondent yelled and screamed. Respondent accused Mrs. Lovell of causing her husband to lose his insurance because Mrs. Lovell did not send the fax. Because Respondent was very angry and appeared out of control, Mrs. Lovell was afraid and did not know what to do. Others in the office could hear the Respondent's verbal assault upon Mrs. Lovell. On September 22, 1997, the principal of Union Park issued a letter of reprimand for misconduct, including inappropriate conduct in the classroom and with school statements for the incidents described above which occurred in the 1996-97 school year. Respondent disputed the substance of the allegations contained in the letter. The 1996-97 school year was a very stressful period for Respondent. During the period, Respondent's mother died, her husband became gravely ill and subsequently died also, and Respondent was removed from the classroom for a period of time. When she returned she came under the close scrutiny of a new principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order that: Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct with students and colleagues during the 1996-97 school year. Respondent be found not guilty of gross immorality or committing an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Respondent be found not guilty of violating Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand in view of the minor matter of the offense and the demonstration of mitigation by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 10th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Harvey M. Alper, Esquire Alper & Crichton, P.A. 112 West Citrus Street Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Ron Weaver, Esquire 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Norrine W. Williams was employed by Petitioner as a teacher aide. She worked at Amelia Earhart Elementary School, a center for special education, for about eight years, including the 1986-1987 school year. While employed at Amelia Earhart, Respondent had continuing financial problems, which caused bill collectors to call and visit the school site on a daily basis. As a result, the work of the school's office staff was disrupted, many people became aware of Respondent's financial problems, and Respondent and her bill collectors were discussed throughout the school. On March 30, 1987, Respondent was arrested in the principal's office and taken into custody by United States Secret Service agents. She was charged with credit card offences. On April 14, 1987, Respondent appeared at a Piggly Wiggly store and attempted to cash a check in the name of Flora Linton. The store manager recognized her as the person who had cashed two previous checks in that name, which checks had been returned to the store because they had been written on a closed account. The store manager summoned a Miami Springs police officer, and Respondent went to the police station with the police officer at his request to discuss the matter. She was joined by a male and by her 76 year-old aunt Flora Linton. During the questioning at the police station, the police officer determined that Flora Linton did not know that her niece had stolen checks from her and had been forging her name to those checks and cashing them for her own personal gain. Respondent admitted to having issued the two previous worthless checks in the amounts of $125.75 and $84.90. She was not charged with a crime on the condition that she make full restitution to Piggly Wiggly. She did so approximately one week later. Several months later the Piggly Wiggly store owner was present in his new store on the other side of town when Respondent attempted to cash a check at that store. The check she was attempting to cash was another of the Flora Linton stolen checks, and she had again forged her aunt's name to that check written on a closed account. When approached by the store owner, she recognized him and turned in her check cashing card and walked away. While Respondent was at the Miami Springs police station on April 14, 1987, a routine background check was run regarding her. It was discovered that there was an outstanding bench warrant for her, and she was taken to the Dade County jail. On April 20, 1987, Respondent was arrested a second time at the school site and taken into custody by law enforcement officers. She admitted that she had in fact fraudulently obtained a Nieman-Marcus credit card by providing fictitious information on the credit card application. She had subsequently charged $972 worth of merchandise at the Nieman-Marcus store using the fraudulently-obtained credit card. She was charged with second degree grand theft, a felony offense, for fraudulently obtaining a Nieman-Marcus department store charge card. She advised the arresting officers that she had no intention of making restitution to Nieman-Marcus. As was the case with Respondent's first arrest at the school site on March 30, 1987, her second arrest on April 20, was observed by office personnel. In the process of being escorted out of the building her second arrest was evident to teachers and students in the areas outside of the principal's office. Respondent plead "no contest" to the criminal charges regarding the fraudulent credit card. She was sentenced to probation and was ordered by the Court to make restitution to Nieman-Marcus in the sum of $972. As of the time of the formal hearing in this cause, the deadline for making restitution had passed, and restitution had still not been made. Although Respondent appeared for the formal hearing in this cause, she left as the proceedings commenced and did not return. Had she remained she would have been arrested by the police officers who testified in this cause since there was still pending an open felony warrant for probation violation for previous worthless checks. While shopping at the Grand Union, formerly the Miami Springs Piggly Wiggly, the principal of Amelia Earhart saw Respondent's name scotch taped to the cash register with a notice advising the cashiers not to cash checks for that person. That Grand Union is located near Amelia Earhart Elementary School. The school board rules concerning employee conduct are contained in a staff handbook. Teacher and teacher aides have staff meetings with administrative teams to review the rules and policies of the school board. Respondent attended those meetings and was specifically advised of the school board rules. Respondent's conduct concerning the issuing of forged and worthless checks, fraudulently obtaining a credit card, having difficulties with bill collectors at the school site, having been adjudicated guilty of grand theft, and failing to pay court costs and make restitution as ordered by the court, constitutes conduct unbecoming a school board employee and misconduct in office in violation of school board rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 and 6Gx13-4C-1.01.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered affirming the Respondent's suspension without pay and dismissing Respondent from her employment with the School Board of Dade County. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed respondent for many years. For the six years ending in 1968, she taught biology at Stranahan High School, where Harold Mouser was principal. Later, she left off teaching science and began working as a librarian, or media specialist. In this capacity, respondent worked at Parkway Junior High School, at Deerfield and at a facility called Southside which housed a center for emotionally disturbed children, when she began working there. Three or four years later, after the 1975-76 school year, the program for emotionally disturbed children was moved elsewhere, but respondent was allowed to remain with her library at Southside. Beginning in 1976, Southside was used for petitioner's Cyesis program, a program of instruction for pregnant school girls. At all pertinent times, Lorene Lasher was principal of the Cyesis program. The first year that the Cyesis center was located at Southside, Ms. Lasher directed respondent to teach a science class, in addition to performing her duties as a librarian. The following school year, 1977-1978, Ms. Lasher closed the library and turned it into a physical education room. She assigned respondent to teach science and mathematics classes, for the 1977-1978 and 1978- 1979 school years. Almost from the time the Cyesis program moved to South side, there was friction between respondent and Ms. Lasher. Things came to a head on October 17, 1978. That morning, shortly before school began, Ms. Lasher entered respondent's classroom. She placed some students' papers on respondent's desk, and demanded that respondent explain how she had marked the papers. Respondent, who was standing behind the desk, asked whether the complaining students had had permission to leave her classroom to speak to Ms. Lasher about the papers. During the heated argument that ensued, Ms. Lasher and respondent came closer together and respondent struck Ms. Lasher, breaking the skin above the lip. Ms. Lasher called out, "You hit me," and respondent replied, "You've been hitting me below the belt for two years," or words to that effect. Ms. Lasher summoned Charles Ramsdell, the guidance counselor, who, once inside respondent's classroom, asked her why she had hit Ms. Lasher. Respondent answered to the effect that Ms. Lasher had been hitting her daily, although not in a physical way. Students at the Cyesis Center in grades seven through twelve were grouped together in the same classes. Because of the students' various levels of achievement, individual folders were kept containing a program of instruction for each student. In addition, respondent and the other teachers at the Cyesis program prepared lesson plans for the class as a whole, for their own use and for the use of substitute teachers, if necessary. The first time Marilyn Shaw substituted for respondent she was unable to find respondent's lesson plans, for reasons which are not clear from the evidence. Respondent had prepared the lesson plans, which a fellow teacher had seen the day before. On subsequent occasions, Ms. Shaw had no difficulty finding respondent's lesson plans, which gave adequate guidance for a substitute teacher. Respondent regularly prepared satisfactory lesson plans while she was teaching at the Cyesis center. Except for wine infrequently, respondent refrains from drinking alcohol. She has never drunk any alcoholic beverages on school grounds, nor appeared in her classroom under the influence of alcohol or any other drug that affected her behavior. Before the media center at Southside was closed down, representatives of firms selling audiovisual materials called on respondent to show their wares. On one such occasion, Ms. Lasher learned that a salesman was with respondent and told respondent to bring the salesman to Ms. Lasher's office. Thereafter he went directly to Ms. Lasher's office whenever he visited Southside. A Mr. Lipane once dropped off some keys in the teacher's lounge for respondent after her car had been repaired. At the end of the school year he and other friends of respondent helped respondent pick up some things. By this time, students were no longer in attendance. Except for this occasion, respondent never invited any man to visit her at work. Sometimes petitioner's maintenance personnel worked at Southside. Respondent excused individual students from her class who needed to see the school nurse, the guidance counselor or some other school official. In keeping with school policy, respondent issued passes on these occasions. Also in keeping with school policy, respondent excused individual students who needed to go to the bathroom; a reusable pass was available to one student at a time for this purpose. Frequently, respondent sent a group of students into the hall just outside her classroom to do make-up work. She persisted in this practice even after Ms. Lasher had directed her to desist. From time to time respondent borrowed a master key from Ms. Lasher's office which she sometimes lent to other teachers before it was returned to Ms. Lasher's office. Respondent never returned a key other than the one she had borrowed. She never caused the master key to be duplicated or used it to enter the school at an unauthorized time. On or about June 17, 1977, Ms. Lasher and two other employees of petitioner entered respondent's office, after the end of the school year and found empty bottles that had once contained whiskey and wine. Respondent maintained a collection of bottles to which other teachers also contributed. The bottles were available for use by the art teacher. An art teacher once used bottles respondent had collected to make wind chimes. The 1977-1978 school year was the first year petitioner had had a homeroom for some time. She was unaware of petitioner's policy requiring that homeroom teachers distribute interim report cards on October 6, 1977, as a prerequisite to giving students failing grades for the semester; and she distributed none. She learned of this requirement at the end of that semester and complied with it thereafter. A schedule was posted in the school office, but it was not established that the schedule indicated when interim report cards were to be sent out. Every fifth week during the school year respondent had "bus duty." She failed to appear for bus duty on the afternoon of September 12, 1977. Instead she went to a workshop, for which she had obtained approval from Ms. Lasher beforehand. As soon as she arrived at the site of the workshop she telephoned Ms. Lasher's office and was told that somebody else was covering for her. On one other occasion, respondent was a few minutes late for bus duty because she was talking to a student. By the time she stopped by the office to get the clipboard all teachers used for bus duty, somebody else had been sent to supervise students awaiting school buses. At Ms. Lasher's instance, on October 12, 1978, Larry Wantuck, petitioner's math coordinator, met with respondent and Mr. Ramsdell, the Cyesis center's guidance counselor, to arrange for respondent to administer a "profile analysis" test to her students. Respondent was to administer the test over a four day period, and to grade the test papers afterwards with Mr. Ramsdell's assistance. She finished administering the tests on October 16, 1978. The following day, after her run in with Ms. Lasher, she was instructed to leave the school premises. When she left, she took the students' test papers with her to the office of the Classroom Teachers' Association. There she finished grading them on October 18, 1978. On October 19, 1978, she reported to petitioner's Lincoln Park Complex, as she had been directed to do. She left the test results in Mr. Wantuck's office, which was located at the Lincoln Park Complex, on October 19, 1978. On October 26, 1978, respondent happened to see Mr. Wantuck and asked him if he had found the test results she had left in his office. When he answered that he had not, they went together to his office and found them on his desk where respondent had left them. At the end of the 1977-1978 school year, respondent turned in her grade book and lesson plans for filing, in accordance with a school policy designed to make them available for reference to teachers in succeeding years. In the fall of 1978, she requested and obtained her 1977-1978 plan book, for which she signed a receipt. She gave the book to a fellow teacher who took it to the Classroom Teachers' association to be copied, in preparation for filing harassment charges against Ms. Lasher. Ms. Lasher asked respondent to return the plan book, and respondent did so a few days later, promptly after regaining possession of the book herself. After she had handed out alternating tests to seven students in her fifth period class, on or about October 12, 1978, respondent started out of her classroom headed for the bathroom. She had not shut the door behind her when Ms. Lasher ordered her to stay to supervise the students' test taking, which she did. At the beginning of each school year, many teachers at the Cyesis Center began recording grades elsewhere than in the official roll book because class composition was particularly unstable then. In the fall of 1978, respondent recorded grades, including grades for the student Cecil Hunter, on index cards. Even after she had entered Cecil Hunter's name in her official roll book and begun noting her attendance there, she did not immediately transfer from the card the grades she had recorded there. Occasionally respondent left her students unsupervised for a minute or two to go to the bathroom or to get a drink of water. If she was going to be gone longer, she would ask Ms. Bracewell or another colleague to look in on her students.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is: RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent for the remainder of the 1979-1980 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Warner S. Olds, Esq. Suite 200 3067 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 John L. Chamblee, Jr., Esq. 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue This is a challenge to action of the Gilchrist County School Board in its act of abolishing the Petitioner's employment position with the School Board as Occupational Specialist. In particular, Petitioner alleges that this action constituted rule within the meaning of Section 120.-52(15), Florida Statutes. Further, it is alleged that that rule activity did not comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Finally, Petitioner claims that the rule enactment or activity was arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact The parties have agreed by stipulation in the course of this hearing that the entire record, to include testimony and exhibits presented in the companion case, Hazel Bowdoin v. School Board of Gilchrist County, Florida, D.O.A.H. Case No. 82-1375, becomes part of the record in this proceeding and may be utilized by the Hearing Officer in arriving at the decision in this cause. The parties have also stipulated to the standing of this Petitioner to challenge the alleged activity in the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist position as being a rule. The parties are satisfied on the subject of the notice of hearing as established in a stipulation entered into at hearing. In a concluding stipulation, the parties agree that the decision to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist held by the Petitioner was not a decision which complied with the formal rule-making procedures set forth in Section 120.54 Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the holder of a Rank III Teaching Certificate, issued by the State of Florida. The certification recognizes her as an Occupational Specialist. On July 8, 1974, she was granted a continuing contract of employment with the Gilchrist County School Board as an Occupational Specialist in the Trenton and Bell schools within the Gilchrist County School District. A copy of that contract may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. The contract by its terms states at Paragraph 9, "This contract shall not operate to prevent discontinuance of a position as provided by law." It is the discontinuance or abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist held by the Petitioner that occasioned the formal hearing in this cause. Since being granted the position of Occupational Specialist in permanent status, Petitioner has performed those duties described in the job description, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Those functions include career planning for students, considering their personal problems, preparing them for assessment tests and the execution of job application forms. In the school year 1981-82, Petitioner worked three- fifths of her time in Trenton High School and two-fifths in Bell High School. In her capacity, Respondent considered her to be acting as the equivalent of a guidance counselor. She has never been certified by the State of Florida as a guidance counselor. Around the beginning of April 1982, the Superintendent of Schools in Gilchrist County, Ray Thomas, decided that the position of Occupational Specialist held by the Petitioner should be abolished. At that time, and at all relevant times, this position of Occupational Specialist was the only position of its type in the Gilchrist County School System. The basis for the abolition or discontinuation of the position concerned anticipated revenue shortfalls or budget inadequacy for the upcoming school year 1982-83, pursuant to information from persons within the State of Florida responsible for educational funding. In arriving at his decision, Thomas sought comment from Robert Ervin, the principal at Bell High School and James Surrency, the principal at Trenton High School. Ervin was asked if the guidance responsibility at Bell High School could best be achieved by the provision of a full-time guidance counselor. Thomas gave the impression to Surrency that the basis for requesting the discontinuation of the position of Occupational Specialist pertained to funding. No particulars were revealed to the principals on the question of the financial position of the school system facing the advent of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, admitted into evidence, are the comments of the Trenton and Bell principals on the subject of the abolition of the position of Occupational Specialist. Ervin accepted the idea of abolishing the Occupational Specialist. Ervin accepted the idea of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position based upon his belief that a full-time guidance counselor would be provided to his school as contrasted to the half-time guidance counselor and two-fifths time work of the Petitioner during the school year 1981-82. In his remarks, Surrency indicates reconciliation to the idea of losing the three-fifths time that the Petitioner was spending at Trenton High; however, he indicates his preference to have the Occupational Specialist position remain if it could be afforded. In the school year 1981-82, Trenton had a full-time guidance counselor in addition to the work being done by the Petitioner. After receiving the comments of the principals and in keeping with his choice, the superintendent of schools wrote to the Petitioner on April 21, 1982, advising her that he would recommend to the School Board, effective the beginning of the school year 1982-83, that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled and offering Bowdoin a leave of absence without pay for one year. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. On April 22, 1982, the recommendation of the Superintendent was presented to the School Board and in the course of that meeting, the Petitioner was represented by counsel. Action on this recommendation by the superintendent was tabled. On May 3, 1982, the Superintendent wrote the School Board and modified his position on the question of Occupational Specialist from one recommending that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled in 1982- 83 school year to one of recommending the discontinuance of the position for economic and curriculum reasons, stating that the duties of that position could be assumed or transferred to the guidance counselor at each school in Gilchrist County. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. On May 4, 1982, consideration was given to the suggestion of total abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist and the School Board in a 3 to 2 vote determined to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. This action was in keeping with Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Prior to the vote, no specific information was imparted by the Superintendent or other school officials as to the financial benefits to be derived from the action or effect of the abolishment in terms of curriculum changes. The school board simply accepted the Superintendent's word that it was necessary to abolish the position for financial reasons. (The Superintendent, since taking office in 1981, has abolished other positions within the-Gilchrist County School System, such as assistant principal at Trenton High School, general supervisor of instruction, food services supervisor, brick and block masonry teacher, librarian at Trenton High School and has left vacant teachers's aide positions.) At the May 4, 1982, meeting, Petitioner asked for and the Board agreed to afford a formal hearing to the Petitioner to challenge the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist position. Again, on June 1, 1982, a request was made in the Petitioner's behalf to have a grievance hearing before the board concerning the board's decision to abolish the job and it was determined that that grievance hearing should be held on July 6, 1982. On July 6, 1982, the Board requested the Superintendent to prepare a list of vacancies which Mrs. Bowdoin might be certified for, the salary schedules related to those positions, a list of programs offered other than K-12 and the state certification requirements for those positions and the name of those persons filling the positions at the time. On July 20, 1982, the Board considered the level III grievance of the Petitioner in the presence of the Petitioner's attorney on the topic of an alternative placement of the Petitioner and the salary associated with that placement. On August 3, 1982, the Board entered a written resolution of decision pertaining to the level III grievance pertaining to the Petitioner, a copy of that resolution being found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. In this resolution, the School Board properly identified that the Petitioner could not be placed as a guidance counselor in that she did not hold a master's degree required for such position. In lieu, of the position of Occupational Specialist which had been abolished by the School Board on May 4, 1982, by its August resolution, the Board offered the position of Teacher's Aide at Trenton Elementary School, with a substantial reduction in salary from approximately $15,000 a year to approximately $6,300 a year. This position of Teacher's Aide was reserved until August 16, 1982. Petitioner did not elect to accept the position of Teacher's Aide and has been unemployed since August 1982. In the course of an August 11, 1982 meeting, the Superintendent reported to the Board that the Petitioner had "responded" at a level IV grievance procedure. On August 31, 1982, the Board was asked to consider litigation which had been presented to it by the Superintendent. On September 2, 1982, in an Executive Board session of the School Board of Gilchrist County, discussion was made of certain civil litigation brought by Petitioner against the Board. On October 5, 1982, an update was given to the Board concerning that case of the Petitioner versus the Board. Another update was made on October 5, 1982. On December 7, 1982, the Board was made aware of the fact that the case was to be considered in arbitration. (Various minutes of School Board meetings as described in this paragraph are more completely set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence.) The matter was presented before the American Arbitration Association and the Arbitrator in his report absolved the Board of any violation related to the job abolition. The copy of that report may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. The date of the report is July 21, 1983. As stated before, the Bell High School in 1982-83, employed a full-time guidance counselor in substitution for an approximately half-time guidance and two-fifths time from Bowdoin the prior year. The Trenton school went from a 1981-82 school year in which a full-time counselor and three-fifths of Bowdoin's time was devoted to counseling activities to a full-time counselor, an aide working two-thirds time mostly in a clerical capacity and some assistance by a vocational teacher in school year 1982-83. Had Bowdoin returned as an aide to the Trenton school in 1982-83, she would have been used in the guidance department in the same role as she had been given as Occupational Specialist. There was a revenue surplus left at the end of the 1982-83 school year and it was sufficient to have allowed the funding of the position of Occupational Specialist for the 1982-83 school year; however, that surplus was less than the 1981-82 school year by approximately $65,000. This funding difference in the face of providing essentially the same services in the school system, pointed out the more difficult economic circumstance that Thomas had made mention of in his initial decision to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. In the 1982-83 Schools year, employees in the school system received salary increases. At the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year, there were approximately 900 students at the Trenton school which included grades K-12. According to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, excerpts from the standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, schools of a population of 750-999 need two guidance professionals. Therefore, the reduction of one and three-fifths counselors in 1981-82 to one counselor and something less than three-fifths in 1982-83 was contrary to the statement of standards. This excerpt is at 4.10.0, Figure 1, minimum personnel requirements. Respondent replies to that assertion through its Exhibit No. 9, which are excerpts of the standards for unit schools by the Commission on Secondary Schools and Commission on Elementary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. At Page 9, 9.16.0-9.16.2, Respondent argues that one guidance counselor suffices for any school with a membership of 500 or more students up to 999 students. Without determining which of these guidelines related to accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is correct, it suffices to say that the changes that were made by the School Board in abolishing the position of Occupational Specialist as it might affect accreditation were made in good faith in that it can arguably be said that Trenton school, having 900 students, only needed one guidance counselor to meet conditions of accreditation. There were no curriculum changes made in the 1982-83 school year as a result of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position. There were curriculum changes but they were not the result of any influence provided by the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist job.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Harvey R. Steckler, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 520419 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. This Certificate covers the area of substitute teaching. On February 5, 1985, the Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher at Brownsville Junior High School in the Dade County Public School System. On February 5, 1985, while substitute teaching in a physical education class, the Respondent was conversing with a group of minor male students. During this conversation, a minor female student passed the Respondent and the group of students. While looking at the female student, the Respondent began to make sexual remarks about her. She could hear portions of these remarks, such as "Oh, she's so fine; he had a girl on his boat and liked to eat her out; you wouldn't mind getting to her; he would like to eat her out," and other sexual comments. These remarks were also overheard by the boys in the group, as well as by the female student. The female student went to the school office and told the Principal and the Assistant Principal about the incident. They suggested to her that she write out a report on the incident, which she did. The Respondent's remarks caused the female student to be both nervous and frightened, as well as embarrassed. When the Principal of Brownsville Junior High reported this incident to the Dade County school system, the Respondent was informed that his name had been removed from the approved list of substitute teachers, pending further notice. After an investigation and several conferences, the Respondent's name was permanently removed from the list of authorized substitute teachers in the Dade County public school system. On April 24, 1985, the Respondent appeared before a publicly televised meeting of the school board to appeal the removal, but the school board took no action to reinstate him. The nature of the incident described above, together with the awareness of the incident on the part of students, staff, parents and the community, because of its publicity, so impaired the Respondent's effectiveness as a substitute teacher and as an educator, that the school board could not re-employ him in any capacity in the Dade County public schools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking Teacher's Certificate No. 520419 held by the Respondent, Harvey R. Steckler. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 17th day of June 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Harvey R. Steckler 825 82nd Street Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney Moenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services Section 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Background Information The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Dillard High School, Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, and Deerfield Park Elementary School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent is employed by the School Board as a professional service contract teacher. He has worked as a teacher for the School Board since 1982 (except for a year's leave of absence following the 1994- 1995 school year). He has an unblemished disciplinary record as a School Board employee. Respondent taught music at Dillard High School (Dillard) from 1982 until the end of the 1994-1995 school year, at Thurgood Marshall Elementary School for the 1995-1996 school year, and at Parkview Elementary School from the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year until early 2005, when he was placed on administrative reassignment pending the outcome of an investigation of an allegation of sexual misconduct made against him by a former student, T. H. At Dillard, Respondent was the director of the school band and a popular teacher. Allegations of Sexual Misconduct T. H. graduated from Dillard in 1989. In her ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade years at Dillard, she was in the school band and a student of Respondent's. T. H., who lived in a fatherless household, looked up to Respondent and considered him to be a "father figure" and "role model." A personal relationship developed between the two. They began conversing with one another on a daily basis, talking "about people and about the world and different things like that." Respondent did most of the talking, with T. H. "listen[ing] to [the] the things he had to say." During "summer band," before the beginning of T. H.'s tenth grade year, the conversations between T. H. and Respondent became more intimate in nature and their relationship evolved into a physical one. The first physical contact they had that summer was in the music library adjacent to Respondent's office, when Respondent walked up to T. H., "embraced" her, and gave her an "[i]ntimate, on-the-mouth kiss." Later that summer, Respondent started driving T. H. home (but not always straight home) in his Toyota Camry after band practice. In the car, there was intimate touching between the two, including Respondent's penetrating T' H.'s vagina with his hand. Thus began the sexual relationship between T. H. and Respondent, which lasted until after she had graduated from Dillard. "[N]umerous times," after school and on weekends, Respondent drove T. H. in his car to various hotels, where they had sexual relations. They also had "dozens" of sexual encounters on school grounds, usually after school hours, in a "little back room," near the school auditorium, that was used as a dressing area. As a result of her having been intimate with Respondent, T. H. was able to observe that Respondent's penis was uncircumcised and that he had a "branded tattoo on his chest." Respondent sometimes set up a video camera to tape his sexual liaisons with T. H. He would also "send [T. H.] home with the camera" on weekends, requesting that she tape herself fondling herself and "and then bring the camera back to him on Monday" (which T. H. did). One day while T. H. was in Respondent's office, Respondent handed her a piece of "notebook paper" on which he had written the following poem: How then, can I tell you of my love? Strong as the eagle, soft as the dove, Patient as the pine tree that stands in the sun and whispers to the wind you are the one!!!![2] On another occasion when T. H. was in Respondent's office, she had a tape recorder with her and asked Respondent to "say something" that she could record. What Respondent said in response to this request was: "I love you baby, suck my dick," and "I love you baby, sit on my face."3 T. H. ended her relationship with Respondent during her first year as a student at the International Fine Arts College in Miami. It was not until 2003, approximately 14 years after she had graduated from Dillard, that T. H. decided to come forward and tell authorities about the sexual relationship she had had with Respondent when she was a student at the school. She had not come forward sooner because she did not have the courage to do so. Only after receiving "church counseling" was she able overcome her fear and become sufficiently emboldened to report what had occurred years earlier between her and Respondent. T. H. first went to the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, but was told that Respondent could not be criminally prosecuted because the limitations period had expired. In January 2005, the School Board's police unit was advised of the allegation that T. H. had made against Respondent and commenced an investigation into the matter, which included interviews with both T. H. and Respondent. On January 28, 2005, Respondent was placed on administrative reassignment with pay pending the outcome of the investigation. T. H. has "hired an attorney to pursue a civil claim against the School Board" for damages she allegedly suffered as a result of her relationship with Respondent when she was a student at Dillard. Allegations of Residing with Students From 1985 to 1987, Respondent resided in Dade County, Florida, with his wife4 and two minor daughters. For at least a portion of that time, two Dillard students stayed with Respondent and his family. One of these students was P. R., who was in the school band. When Respondent learned that P. R. was living in a residence with "no running water [and] no mom or dad," he invited P. R. to move in with him, an invitation that P. R. accepted. "Eventually," Respondent was able to make contact with P. R.'s mother and obtain her approval to "keep" P. R. P. R. lived with Respondent and his family for a year and a half. He moved out after he graduated and joined the military. The other student that stayed with Respondent and his family was C. M. Respondent's oldest daughter and C. M. both played flute in the school band and were close friends. C. M. stayed at Respondent's house on weekends and when school was not in session. C. M.'s mother never had any problem with these living arrangements. Respondent did not notify the School Board that P. R. and C. M. were staying with him inasmuch as he did not know that he was required to do so. Allegations of Corporal Punishment From 1982 to 1985, Respondent administered corporal punishment to students contrary to School Board policy (hitting female students on the hand with a ruler and male students on the buttocks with a paddle). He did not "seek permission from anyone in the [school] administration before administering [this] corporal punishment," nor did he administer this corporal punishment in the presence of another School Board employee, as required by School Board policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for having had a sexual relationship with T. H. when she was a student of his at Dillard. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, 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 23rd day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools District pursuant to a professional services contract. In the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Homestead Middle School. In the 2012-2013 school year, until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at the Alternative Outreach Program, 5000 Role Models location.1/ At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Events Giving Rise to these Proceedings The 2011-2012 School Year Respondent began teaching eighth grade science at Homestead Middle School ("HMS") in August 2011. The 2011-2012 school year for students began on August 22, 2011. The workday hours for teachers at HMS for the 2011-2012 school year were from 7:25 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed for her teaching position, and again so informed during the first faculty meeting of the school year. Pursuant to the UTD contract, the teacher work hours per day in the Miami-Dade Public Schools consist of seven hours and 20 minutes, including a one-hour planning period. The UTD Contract provides that teachers may, with the approval of the work-site administrator (i.e., the principal) modify their workday schedule, such as adjusting the beginning time of the teacher's workday, provided that such modification does not interfere with the overall number of hours worked. This provision affords a principal the authority and discretion to modify a teacher's workday schedule. The student school day hours for HMS began at 7:35 a.m., when the first bell rang and students began entering their classrooms, and ended at 2:20 p.m. Students were to be in their classrooms by 7:40 a.m. for a homeroom period, immediately followed by the first instructional period consisting of a literacy block. The student school day schedule is set by the Miami-Dade County School Board and the school principal is not authorized to change it. Pursuant to HMS's established procedure, if a teacher was going to be absent, he or she must call the absence hotline at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the teacher workday. Shortly after the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began being tardy to work. HMS Principal Rachelle Surrancy or one of the HMS assistant principals would note Respondent's arrival time, either by being in the front of the school when she arrived2/ or by having to open the door to her classroom to let her homeroom class students in if she arrived after the late bell had rung. Surrancy verbally reminded Respondent of the school's starting time, then held an informal meeting with her on or about September 7, 2011, to remind her of the same. Respondent's young son suffers from a range of significant health conditions, including asthma, gastrointestinal reflux, apnea, pneumonia, lactose intolerance, allergic rhinitis, and eczema. He requires extensive care for these conditions, and Respondent was required to administer breathing treatments and other care on a daily basis. During flare-ups of her son's conditions, Respondent needed to take medical leave to provide that care. On or about September 20, 2011, Respondent submitted to Surrancy an Intermittent Leave Request Medical Certification form under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (hereafter "FMLA Form")3/ requesting approval for Respondent to periodically take leave due to the intermittent illness of her young son. The FMLA form was completed and signed by Respondent's son's physician. Based on the child's medical history, the physician estimated that Respondent would need to take FMLA leave every two to three months, for a period lasting two to three days. Notwithstanding Surrancy's admonitions, Respondent continued to be tardy to work. During the first 25 days of the school year, Respondent was tardy 16 of those days. Most of the tardies entailed an arrival time of between two and five minutes late, but some entailed arrival times as much as 25 to 35 minutes late. When Respondent arrived after 7:40 a.m. (15 minutes late), her colleagues in the science department were placed in the position of having to cover her class until she arrived. As a result of Respondent's continued tardiness, on September 28, 2011, Surrancy issued a Punctuality to Work Directive ("Directive") to Respondent regarding her punctuality and attendance.4/ The Directive reminded Respondent that punctuality and attendance were essential components of her teaching position, and that as a faculty member, she served as a role model to other employees and student. Respondent was apprised that she was to arrive at work on time and sign in daily by 7:25 a.m. If she was going to be tardy, she was to communicate that to an assistant principal or to Surrancy. Surrancy explained that compliance with these directives was necessary to prevent adverse impact to the students and their academic progress, to ensure continuity of the educational program, and to maintain effective worksite operations. The memo advised Respondent that she could obtain assistance to facilitate her punctuality. Respondent was notified that noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. Respondent told Surrancy that the reason she was tardy was that she had to take her son to his daycare center. The daycare center did not open until 7:00 a.m., making it difficult for her to arrive at HMS by 7:25 a.m. due to the commute in morning traffic. On October 5, 2011, Surrancy evaluated Respondent's instructional performance for the 2011-2012 school year pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used in the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. Surrancy rated Respondent as "effective" for each IPEGS standard other than Performance Standard ("PS") 7, "Professionalism."5/ For that standard, she rated Respondent's performance as "unsatisfactory" on the basis that due to her tardies, Respondent violated the School Board's Code of Ethics and Standards of Ethical Conduct policies.6/ After the September 28 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy, so on October 10, 2011, Surrancy again met with her. Respondent explained that each day, her son required a breathing treatment regimen that she had to administer and that she had to take her son to daycare. Respondent told Surrancy that she planned to enlist the assistance of a friend to take her son to daycare so that may assist her to arrive on time.7/ Surrancy offered to adjust Respondent's workday schedule to allow her to arrive five minutes later to accommodate her travel time from her son's daycare to HMS, contingent on Respondent arriving at work by 7:30 a.m. However, Respondent continued to be tardy, at times arriving later than 7:30 a.m. Surrancy held a follow-up meeting with Respondent on October 25, 2011, at which she notified Respondent that the adjusted workday schedule no longer was in effect and that she was again required to arrive at 7:25 a.m.8/ In the meantime, Respondent sought to transfer to a school having a workday schedule with which she could more easily comply, given her son's daycare start time and her travel time. She was offered, but declined, a position at Redland Middle School, which entailed a teaching assignment that was out of her field of certification. Respondent declined the position because it did not meet the condition of her loan forgiveness program that the assignment be in a critical subject area——such as science and math——and because she did not believe she would be as proficient a teacher in teaching out of her subject area. Following the October 25 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy. Several of these tardies necessitated coverage for her homeroom class. On December 14, 2011, Surrancy held a Conference-for- the-Record ("CFR") with Respondent to address her continued tardiness. By that time, Respondent had been tardy 45 days since the beginning of the school year, and several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class by her colleagues. Surrancy informed Respondent that her tardies had adversely affected the educational program and services provided to students. Respondent was again directed to be punctual and in regular attendance, to communicate any intent to be tardy before 7:00 a.m. by calling the assistant principals or her, and to provide physician documentation and/or recertification of her FMLA form as needed if she was going to use FMLA leave to cover her tardies. Respondent was provided copies of Petitioner's policies on Standards of Ethical Conduct, Code of Ethics, and Leaves of Absence; Department of Education rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006; another copy of the FMLA for recertification by her physician; and other documents to inform and assist Respondent in addressing her tardiness problem. Respondent was informed that noncompliance with the directives would constitute insubordination and compel district disciplinary action. Respondent continued to be tardy. Again, several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class. On February 13, 2012, Surrancy conducted another CFR with Respondent. As of that date, Respondent had been tardy 69 days since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Surrancy issued Respondent the same directives previously given and again furnished Respondent copies of pertinent School Board policies, applicable Department of Education rules, and other informational documents. Surrancy informed Respondent that failure to comply with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and necessitate further disciplinary action. Respondent explained that her tardiness was due to a variety of factors, including having to perform breathing and other medical treatments on her son and taking him to daycare. She expressed concern at having to call in by 7:00 a.m. if she was going to be tardy because, for unforeseen reasons such as her son's daycare being late in opening, she may not know whether she was going to be tardy until after 7:00 a.m. Surrancy informed Respondent that under any circumstances, calling in did not excuse tardiness. Respondent requested that Surrancy assign her homeroom to another teacher and allow her to report at 7:45 a.m., when her science classes commenced. Surrancy refused. As a result of Respondent's continued tardies, Surrancy determined that her conduct constituted insubordination and noncompliance with applicable School Board policies. Surrancy issued a written Reprimand to Respondent on March 5, 2012. The Reprimand directed Respondent to adhere to school board policies, be punctual, and call Surrancy or an assistant principal before 7:00 a.m. if she were going to be tardy. Respondent nonetheless continued to be tardy, necessitating another CFR, which was held on March 29, 2012. By this time, Respondent had been tardy 86 days and absent 8.5 days in the 2011-2012 school year. During the CFR, Respondent provided two FMLA leave request forms completed by her son's treating physicians certifying the frequency and duration of her son's flare-ups that necessitated leave. One of these, dated March 6, 2012, stated that flare-ups occurred at a frequency of every one to two months for a duration of two to three days, while the other, dated February 20, 2012, stated that the flare-ups occurred approximately once a month and did not specify a duration. Under any circumstances, Respondent was tardy more frequently than the number of days of leave documented as necessary by either of these FMLA forms. Respondent again was given directives, which included those previously provided regarding punctuality and attendance, calling in by 7:00 a.m. if tardiness was anticipated, physician documentation for leave requests, performance of her teaching duties, comporting herself in a manner that reflected credit on herself and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and adherence to School Board policies and applicable Department of Education rules. Respondent was again provided copies of the policies, rules, and other documents previously given to her. Respondent was offered the option of resigning her position but declined. Surrancy recommended that Respondent be suspended from her teaching position. However, Respondent was not suspended during the 2011-2012 school year.9/ Although Respondent's tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year required coverage of her homeroom class by colleagues on several occasions, she did not miss any classroom instructional time.10/ 2012-2013 School Year For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was hired as a math and science teacher in the Educational Alternative Outreach Program's ("EAO") credit recovery program. She was assigned to the EAO's 5000 Role Models location. In this assignment, Respondent taught between 12 and 15 students in grades six through eight. The 5000 Role Models facility was located between 35 and 40 miles from Respondent's home. She had a commute of between one hour ten minutes and two hours one way from her home to 5000 Role Models. The teacher workday hours for this location were 8:20 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed by EAO Principal Claire Warren, and by letter from Warren regarding her projected teaching assignment for the 2012-2013 school year. Warren credibly testified that at the time she was interviewed, Respondent did not express any concerns regarding this schedule. The student school day at 5000 Role Models started at 9:00 a.m. Shortly after the school year commenced, Respondent began being tardy. During the first week of the students' school year, Respondent was tardy twice, approximately 20 minutes each time. On August 31, 2012, Warren issued Respondent a written memorandum reminding her of the directives that were issued the previous school year and directing her to be punctual and in regular attendance; call before 8:00 a.m. to notify either Warren or the assistant principal if she was going to be absent or tardy; provide physician documentation for absences and tardies due to illness; timely submit updated FMLA forms if anticipated illness or tardies covered under the FMLA are anticipated; adhere to all School Board policies; and perform her job responsibilities. Respondent was placed on notice that noncompliance with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate notification of the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. As of October 1, 2012, Respondent had been tardy eight times11/ and absent three days.12/ On some of the days she was tardy, Respondent did not call to notify the administration, as she had been directed to do; on other days, she sent text messages but did not call. Warren conducted another conference with Respondent on October 1, 2012. She issued another memorandum documenting Respondent's tardies since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, reiterating the directives previously issued on August 31, and notifying Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination. Warren also provided a letter to Respondent regarding FMLA coverage of her tardies and absences. The letter informed Respondent that only absences, i.e., time away from the worksite, and not tardies were covered by the FMLA, and that it was her responsibility to notify the school if she were going to be absent pursuant to an FMLA-certified illness event. Attached to the letter was an FMLA Form to enable Respondent to update her FMLA-covered illness certification as necessary. Respondent's tardies continued. She was tardy on October 2, 5, 8, and 9——on some of these days as much as 45 to 70 minutes late. On the days when she was tardy by 40 or more minutes, she missed classroom instructional time and her students had to be placed in another teacher's classroom. On October 10, 2012, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay,13/ for gross insubordination and for violating School Board policies regarding the Code of Ethics (policy 3210), Standards of Ethical Conduct (policy 3210.01), and Leaves of Absence (policy 3430), and rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009.14/ Respondent served her suspension and returned to work on November 26, 2012. On that day, she was 11 minutes tardy; the following day, she was 40 minutes tardy. On November 29, 2012, Warren issued another memorandum to Respondent reiterating the directives previously given on August 31 and October 1. Respondent was informed that her failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate referral to the Office of Professional Standards for further discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. In December 2012 and January 2013, Respondent was tardy 13 days, two of which required coverage of her class. Respondent did not call in to the school to notify them of her anticipated tardiness but she did notify the school by text message on some of these occasions. On February 1, 2013, Respondent was notified of a CFR scheduled for February 5, 2013. On February 4, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she would not be at school that day or the following day. On February 6, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she was taking a leave of absence "for at least the next few weeks." She also informed Warren that her absences the previous two days had been due to her own illness. Respondent did not submit a leave request form to Warren prior to taking sick leave. Respondent did submit a Leave of Absence Medical Documentation Form to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Retirement/Leave/Unemployment Compensation ("Leave Office") on February 5, 2013, containing her physician's certification that she was ill and recommending a leave of absence from February 4, 2013, to March 1, 2013. Because she was requesting approval of leave for less than 30 days' duration, under the UTD Contract, Respondent should have filed her leave request with Warren rather than with the Leave Office. UTD Contract Article XIV, section 2, paragraph A., governing notification in the event of teacher absence, states in pertinent part: When a teacher, for whom an emergency temporary instructor is employed, will be absent from work, due to illness or injury or due to personal reasons, he/she shall notify the supervising administrator (or designee), as soon as possible, but no later than one hour before the start of his/her scheduled workday, in order that an emergency temporary instructor can be employed or other arrangements made. If said absence/leave is for a specified period of time, no further notice is necessary. In the event of a change in this specified period of absence, the employee will proceed, pursuant to the stipulations herein. Where an absent teacher does not notify his/her supervising administrator, as stipulated herein, and where there are not extenuating circumstances, as determined by the supervising administrator, such teacher will have the option to utilize personal leave or leave without pay. However, such determination by the supervising administrator shall not be made arbitrarily. UTD Contract, art. XIV, § 2.A. (emphasis added). Article XIV, section 10, governs sick leave without pay for illness. Paragraph C. of that section states: "[e]mployees whose illness requires an absence of over 30 days must file an application for extended sick leave indicating the anticipated length of such absence and supported by a statement from competent medical authority." This leave request would be filed with the Leave Office. However, because Respondent did not request sick leave for a period exceeding 30 days, this provision was not applicable to her leave request. Notwithstanding, Respondent's leave request was reviewed by a medical consultant for Miami-Dade County Public Schools and ultimately was denied. Apparently, some time elapsed before the Leave Office forwarded Respondent's leave request and denial decision to Warren. Warren testified: "I didn't get the request until much afterwards, you know, after she had been out several days " Even after Warren received Respondent's leave request form and denial from the Leave Office, more time passed before she notified Respondent. It was not until March 1, 2013, that Warren sent Respondent a letter informing her that her leave request had been denied and that her absences for the entire month of February were unauthorized, thus warranting her dismissal on the basis of job abandonment. At approximately the same time Warren notified Respondent that her leave request was denied, Warren also notified Respondent, by separate email, that she had incorrectly submitted her leave request to the Leave Office, instead of submitting it to her (Warren). On the same day that Warren notified Respondent that her leave request had been denied, Respondent submitted another leave request form and a medical documentation form to Warren, retroactively requesting approval of her sick leave taken between February 4 to March 18, 2013, due to her own illness. Warren denied the request that same day, citing the medical consultant's determination as the basis for the denial. Warren's letter did not cite an independent basis for the denial. Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the medical consultant's determination to deny the request. Respondent returned to work on March 4, 2013. She was tardy that day and the following day. On March 6, 2013, a CFR was held. The CFR originally had been scheduled for February 5, 2013, but when Respondent took leave, it was rescheduled. At the meeting, Respondent was apprised that her tardies and absences were excessive and that they, along with her failure to adhere to the other previously issued directives, constituted gross insubordination. On March 13, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent's Criminal History Petitioner presented evidence that in August 2012, a records check for Respondent was generated after information was received from Petitioner's Fingerprinting Office indicating that Respondent had been arrested in January 2011 for violation of a protective injunction and in July 2011 for battery. However, this evidence consisted solely of hearsay. Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay evidence establishing that these arrests occurred. Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011. She acknowledged that she was arrested for battery in July 2011. She testified, credibly, that the arrest occurred over the July 4th holiday and that she timely reported this arrest by calling Petitioner's instructional staffing office. Respondent credibly testified that the charge was not prosecuted and ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not present any competent or credible evidence to refute Respondent's testimony on these points. Respondent's Defenses Respondent asserts that she was not tardy as frequently in the 2011-2012 school year as Petitioner asserts. She questions the accuracy of Surrancy's and others' recordkeeping regarding her tardiness. However, she did not present any specific evidence to show that Petitioner's records of her tardiness in the 2011-2012 were inaccurate; thus, her position on that point is essentially speculative. She also claims that Surrancy did not treat her fairly or equitably during the 2011-2012 school year. Specifically, she asserts that Surrancy had the authority and flexibility to adjust her workday schedule so that she did not have to cover a homeroom class, thus allowing her to arrive at work later, but that Surrancy unfairly chose not to do so. Respondent further asserts that Surrancy had provided such accommodation to another teacher in a previous school year. Thus, Respondent claims that Surrancy treated her unfairly.15/ However, Surrancy testified, persuasively, that she could not have relieved Respondent of having a homeroom in order to enable her to arrive later in the workday because instructional personnel, other than coaches and co-teachers, were assigned homeroom or other professional duties that required them to be at school during regular workday hours. Thus, there was no one else available to assume Respondent's homeroom class responsibilities.16/ Respondent also asserts that Surrancy treated her disparately and unfairly by singling her out for discipline for her tardies, while not disciplining others who also were often tardy. However, even if that were the case, it does not excuse Respondent's tardies or provide a basis for Surrancy to decline to enforce school policies with respect to Respondent. Respondent also asserts that she was not afforded the FMLA leave to which she was legally and contractually entitled. Specifically, she argues that she filed FMLA leave forms stating the need for intermittent leave to care for her son, so that for the days on which she was tardy, the number of minutes by which she was tardy should have been counted as leave under the FMLA. Respondent testified, credibly, that she did not purposely refuse to follow the directives given her by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards, and that her tardies during both school years were the result of her having to provide medical care for her young son and take him to daycare, then commute in heavy traffic to the worksites. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner claimed that Respondent was insubordinate because she did not adhere to directives to call the school if she was going to be tardy, Respondent credibly countered that she often would call in, only to be put on hold for some time and then told that the administrator she was attempting to reach was not available; thus, she started sending text messages instead to ensure that her message was received. Regarding the arrest reporting issue, Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011, and testified that she timely reported her July 2011 arrest to the appropriate authority. Findings of Ultimate Fact In these consolidated proceedings, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment17/ as a teacher on the basis of just cause——specifically, gross insubordination and misconduct in office.18/ As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.33 and rules 6A-5.056; and 6B-1.001 and 6A-10.080; and 6B-1.006 and 6A-10.081. Gross Insubordination Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's conduct in accruing an extensive number of tardies during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years constituted gross insubordination. Although Respondent did submit leave request forms estimating the frequency and duration of FMLA-covered leave she would need in order to care for her son, the evidence shows that she was tardy far more frequently than supported by any of the forms she submitted. In order to accommodate an employee's FMLA request, Petitioner must be able to rely on the information the employee provides on the FMLA leave form. If the information provided on the form is inaccurate, Petitioner is neither required nor authorized to consider undocumented time away from the work site as leave covered under the FMLA.19/ While it is admittedly difficult to precisely predict when illness will occur, under any circumstances, the forms Respondent submitted did not cover the frequency of her tardies incurred in the 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 school years.20/ As addressed above, it appears that Respondent was the victim of a coalescence of unfortunate personal circumstances that interfered with her employment. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was repeatedly put on notice by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards that her continued tardiness would constitute gross insubordination. Any measures that Respondent purportedly took to rectify the circumstances, such as enlisting the help of a friend to take her son to daycare, apparently were unsuccessful. Respondent had the option in the 2011-2012 school year to transfer to another school to address the morning commute issues, but she chose not to. Although she had legitimate personal and professional reasons for choosing to remain at HMS, the fact remains that she elected not to pursue a course of action that may have addressed the problematic circumstances she found herself in. Under these circumstances, the undersigned concludes, albeit reluctantly, that Respondent's conduct——which took place over a period of two school years, after frequent admonitions, and after she had been placed on notice several times that her continued conduct would constitute gross insubordination——does, in fact, constitute gross insubordination. With respect to Respondent's absences in February 2013, the evidence indicates that Petitioner's Leave Office and Principal Warren unnecessarily delayed notifying Respondent that her leave request for February 2013 had been denied. The evidence gives rise to the inference that Respondent may have cut her leave short and returned to the work site had she been timely informed that her request had been denied. Moreover, Petitioner presented no competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the Leave Office's denial of Respondent's request, or for Warren's denial of Respondent's retroactive request on the same basis. Under these circumstances, the undersigned determines that Respondent's absences for the month of February 2013 should not be considered unexcused. However, even without considering these absences, Respondent's repeated tardiness over an extended period of time without proper leave documentation and after extensive prior notice of the consequences, is sufficient to establish gross insubordination. Misconduct in Office As more fully discussed below, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed misconduct in office under both versions of rule 6A-5.056 in effect in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, respectively. Specifically, Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession because her conduct caused her to lose the respect and confidence of her colleagues. In particular, Respondent's frequent tardiness substantially undermined Surrancy's confidence in her reliability, and, thus, impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness over the course of the 2012-2013 school year also constituted misconduct in office. Again, she violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession by failing to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues. Respondent's frequent tardiness adversely affected Warren's confidence in her reliability. Additionally, on the days when Respondent's tardiness necessitated her students being moved to another teacher's classroom, her students' learning environment was disrupted, and her own ability and that of her colleagues to effectively perform their duties was reduced. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired. Petitioner also charged Respondent with violating Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, which provides that all employees are representatives of the Miami-Dade County School District and requires employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Respondent's frequent tardies over an extended period of time gave the appearance of disregard for school policies and did not reflect credit on her or on the school district. Moreover, Respondent did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when they had to be moved to another teacher's classroom due to her tardiness.21/ Accordingly, Respondent violated Policy 3210. Respondent also violated Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. As found above, she did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when she was so tardy that they had to be moved to another classroom. However, Respondent did not violate Policy 3430, Leaves of Absence. For the reasons discussed above, Respondent's absences in February 2013 should not have been determined unexcused; thus, she did not violate Policy 3430. Respondent also did not violate Policy 3121.01, Employment Standards and Fingerprinting of Employees. To the extent Petitioner argues that Respondent lacks good moral character based on having been arrested, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding her arrests or failure to timely report them as required by school board policy. Respondent acknowledged that she had been arrested in July 2011 but testified that she had timely reported it, and that the charge ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not offer any competent evidence22/ to counter Respondent's testimony, which is deemed credible and persuasive. Factual Basis for Recommended Sanction The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not purposely set out to violate school policies and Department of Education rules, but that circumstances coalesced such that Respondent found herself in the extremely difficult position of having to care for her very ill son and take him to daycare, then undertake a lengthy commute in morning traffic, without enough time to accomplish both. As unfortunate and trying as those circumstances were, they do not excuse Respondent from complying with the crucial and reasonable requirement that employees arrive to work on time.23/ Nonetheless, the evidence establishes that Respondent is an innovative, proficient teacher in the critical subject areas of science and math, and that she cares about performing her job well——to the extent that she declined an out-of-field teaching assignment, in part due to concern that she would not perform effectively in that assignment. As such, it is reasonable to infer that under less demanding circumstances, such as having a shorter commute or a later workday starting time, Respondent would perform her teaching duties proficiently and professionally. The circumstances in this case warrant upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013- 2014 school year, and denying back pay for the full period of her suspension. However, given the very trying circumstances Respondent faced in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and because the evidence indicates that under less oppressive circumstances Respondent likely would be an innovative, proficient, and professional teacher, the undersigned believes that terminating Respondent's employment would be excessively harsh and that Petitioner would lose a good teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013-2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of her suspension; and reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014- 2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2014
