Findings Of Fact During 1978 and 1979, Petitioner was employed as a full-time teacher on an annual contract basis with the Leon County School Board. The principal at the Petitioner's school did not recommend him for reappointment for the 1979- 1980 school year. Petitioner, accordingly, was not reappointed. The Leon County School Board has adopted rules relating to the reappointment of teachers. School Board Rule 2.02(3)(a) provides: The building principal shall submit to the Superintendent for reappoint- ment, those members of his faculty recommended for reappointment. These reappointments, upon approval of the Superintendent, shall be recommended to the School Board at least six weeks prior to the close of the post school conference. In accordance with this rule, since Petitioner was not recommended for reappointment by his principal, he was not recommended by the superintendent and not reappointed by the School Board. Petitioner was not terminated from his position as a part of a School Board layoff. The Petitioner's job performance had been satisfactory. He was not recommended for reappointment because the school had three persons available to teach courses for which there were only two positions. The Petitioner was the least senior of the three persons and did not have tenure. Accordingly, he was not recommended for reappointment.
The Issue Whether the challenged portions of Respondent's Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP), which is incorporated by reference in School Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022 (specifically) that paragraph in subsection C-2 of the MAPP which references Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, and the following language in subsection C-8 of the MAPP, under Florida Principal Competency (FPC) No. 11: "The principal who has TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY: looks at problems as if there were no rules, then decides what to do to resolve the situation tactfully") are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, for the reasons asserted by Petitioner. Whether Petitioner has standing, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to challenge these provisions.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, including the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation,2 the following findings of fact are made: Respondent (School Board) is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Section IV, of the Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and the parent of a child enrolled in the Miami-Dade County Public School System (MDCPS) as a ninth-grade student at Miami Killian Senior High School (Killian).3 Petitioner is currently serving as the parent representative on the Educational Excellence Council at Killian. As Petitioner states in her "resume" (Petitioner's Exhibit 18), she is "an advocate for better education," and, "as such . . . ha[s] participated in committees, written numerous research-based reports, attended countless School Board meetings,4 and testified at many public hearings." Over the years, when she has had concerns regarding practices or policies at her children's schools, she has made these concerns known to School Board administrators and School Board members. Petitioner is challenging, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, language found in parts of the School Site Administrator Performance Planning and Assessment System (PPAS), which is contained in section C of the Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP) and which, together with the remaining portions of the MAPP, is incorporated in, and made a part of, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022. Subsection C-1 of the PPAS (which Petitioner is not challenging) sets forth the "[s]cope and [p]urpose" of the PPAS. It provides as follows: This section, effective with the 1998-1999 school year, sets forth the rules, regulations and procedures for the establishment, maintenance, and administration of the performance planning and assessment system applicable to school site managerial personnel. Subsection C-2 of the PPAS contains a "[s]tatement of [p]olicy." It provides as follows: The Miami-Dade County Public Schools Performance Planning and Assessment System was developed as an aid to improving the performance and developing the potential of every administrator. A performance plan mutually developed by the administrator and the supervisor consists of three major components: Developing plans directly linked to overall job functions as related to the job duties and responsibilities, school site target objectives, and/or major system objectives, as applicable. Improving job performance by reviewing past assessments and setting expectations for improvement or enhancement. Developing personal potential through emphasis on standards required for success and professional growth in the present job, as well as preparation for future career goals. In evaluating performance standards, the emphasis is placed on collecting data which indicate that the individual demonstrates or practices the performance standards established for the assigned position and the school site target objectives. The performance assessment procedures set forth herein shall be adhered to strictly. Administrators shall have their performance evaluated by their immediate supervisor (assessor) and their assessor's supervising administrator (reviewer) only. Formal assessments and evaluations placed in administrator's official personnel files shall be in compliance with the procedures and instruments of the Performance Planning and Assessment System. Administrators being appraised need to be aware of the rationale, intent and procedures of the performance assessment system in relation to their job assignment. Florida Department of Education Performance Assessment System guidelines: specify that a comprehensive performance assessment system is fair, equitable, and legally sound; establish procedures for the collection, retrieval and use of data to provide feedback to an individual, a team, and the system; provide data for recognizing high performance through a variety of means; consider the specific conditions of the site in establishing expectations; promote the growth and development of the individual and the continuous improvement of the organization; allocate time to plan, coach and counsel for higher performance; provide orientation on the system and skill development in observing, mentoring, coaching and counseling for those in and affected by the system. Administrators who manage the performance assessment system must have knowledge and skills that go far beyond an academic knowledge of the system. They must understand and be able to respond to evaluative data on the system. They must also be able to link the performance assessment system to the other components of the Comprehensive Human Resources Development System. Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.29, the system (district) must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrators performance assessment, when appropriate. The district mechanisms include notification to parents of this provision printed on student report cards and notification to teachers of this provision through memorandum included in staff handbooks. [Underlining added.] Principals must ensure that all assistant principals are exposed to and/or have experience in the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and the five M-DCPS Technical Skills. There may be cases where an assistant principal may not be assigned to work with all of the competencies and all of the technical skills. However, all assistant principals must be exposed to these competencies and technical skills either through actual experience(s), or attendance at district sponsored workshops, or other professional growth activities. Petitioner is challenging the underlined language of subsection C-2 of the PPAS set forth above (Input Provision), which was added to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022 (Rule) on or about November 7, 1997. Before amending the Rule to add the Input Provision, the School Board published a Notice of Intended Action (dated September 12, 1997), which read, in pertinent part, as follows: PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To amend Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022, Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures, by revising the document, Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP), which is incorporated by reference and is part of this rule, in order to be in compliance with new state legislation, Section 231.29 . . ., Florida Statute[s]. SUMMARY: The revised rule provides language describing the mechanism to be used in the District for giving parents and teachers input into administrative assessment as appropriate. . . . SPECIFIC AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH RULEMAKING IS AUTHORIZED: 230.22(2), F.S. LAW IMPLEMENTED, INTERPRETED, OR MADE SPECIFIC: 231.02; 231.0861; 231.087(1); 236.0811, F.S.; 6A-4.0083; 61-4.0084 FAC. In addition, the School Board placed an advertisement in the September 29, 1997, edition of the Miami Daily Business Review, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: NOTICE The School Board of Dade County, Florida, announces the following Board Rule action will be taken at its 1:00 p.m. meeting on: November 5, 1997 School Board Auditorium 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 To Amend: 6Gx13-4D-1.022, Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP), in order to be in compliance with new state legislation, Section 231.29 . . ., Florida Statutes[s]. Specific Authority: 230.22(2), F.S. Law Implemented, Interpreted, or Made Specific: 231.02; 231.0861; 231.087(1); 236.0811, F.S.; 6A-4.0083; 61-4.0084 FAC Although Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, was mentioned in the Input Provision, neither the "Specific Authority," nor the "Law Implemented, Interpreted or Made Specific" portions of the November 5, 1997, amended version of the Rule contained any reference to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. It was not until the day after the October 21, 1998, School Board meeting (the last School Board meeting at which members of the School Board took action to amend the Rule) that Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, was added to the "Law Implemented, Interpreted or Made Specific" portion of the Rule. The addition was made, not by the members of the School Board, but by the School Board Clerk, Ileana Menendez, who believed that such action was authorized by School Board Rule 6Gx13-8C-1.061, which, at all times material to the instant case, has provided as follows: CORRECTION OF CERTAIN ERRORS IN RULES The Superintendent of Schools, as Secretary to the Board, shall have the authority to review the School Board Rules and when judged useful shall: Correct grammatical, typographical, and like errors not affecting the construction or meaning of the rules; Keep a record of corrections made pursuant to subsection 1; and Report to the Board any corrections made. Ms. Menendez reported the "correction" she had made to the Office of the School Board Attorney. The English version of the "notification to parents . . . printed on student report cards,"5 which is referred to in the Input Provision, reads as follows: FLORIDA LAW PROVIDES FOR PARENT INPUT ON TEACHER/ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE, WHEN APPROPRIATE. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE SCHOOL, PRINCIPAL, OR THE REGION OFFICE. By providing such notification, the School Board alerts the parent to the parent's opportunity to provide (at any time the parent deems appropriate) information and opinion regarding an administrator's performance for consideration by those (specially-trained individuals) charged with the responsibility of evaluating the administrator's performance. The significance of the "19 Florida Principal Competencies" referred to in the paragraph immediately following the Input Provision is described in subsection C-7 of the PPAS, which reads as follows: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA In order to qualify for a rating Distinguished Performance Standards on the annual evaluation form, assessees must be rated Distinguished Performance Standards on 18 out of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and rated as Distinguished Performance Standards on five out of the five M-DCPS Technical Skills, and on Performance Related to Job Targets. In order to qualify for a rating Commendable Performance Standards, assessees must be rated as Commendable Performance Standards on 17 out of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and rated as Commendable Performance Standards on four out of the five M-DCPS Technical Skills. Performance Related to Job Targets must be at least 90% accomplished (C-8 through C-11). In order to qualify for a rating Competent Performance Standards, assessees must be rated as Competent Performance Standards on 16 out of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and rated as Competent Performance Standards on three out of the five M-DCPS Technical Skills. Performance Related to Job Targets must be at least 80% accomplished (C-8 through C-11). Assessees not exhibiting the minimum number of indicators listed for each standard of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and/or the five M-DCPS Technical Skills, and/or who have not met their Performance Related to Job Targets will receive an overall rating of Below Expectations on Performance Standards and will require a Professional Improvement Plan (C-8 through C-11). The "19 Florida Principal Competencies" are listed and explained in subsection C-8 of the PPAS. "Florida Principal Competency" (FPC) No. 11 is "tactical adaptability," which is described in subsection C-8 of the PPAS as follows: TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY is the ability to adapt one's interaction and behavior to fit the situation. (3 out of 4) DIMENSIONS: ADAPTABILITY: Maintaining effectiveness in varying environments, tasks, responsibilities or with people; FLEXIBILITY: Modifying behavior to reach a goal; INDIVIDUAL LEADERSHIP: Utilizing appropriate interpersonal styles to guide individuals to task accomplishment. The principal who has TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY: adopts roles of listener, facilitator and confronter as needed finds ways to get around policies and procedures which interfere with the school's goals looks at problems as if there are no rules, then decides what to do to resolve the situation tactfully understands how own behavior affects others and makes appropriate adjustments. Except for the language in numbered paragraph 11.2, which Petitioner is no longer challenging (as a result of the School Board's agreement to initiate action to replace it with other language agreeable to Petitioner6), the foregoing, including the language in numbered paragraph 11.3 (Paragraph 11.3), the validity of which (along with the Input Provision) Petitioner disputes, is a verbatim recital of language contained in the Florida Principal Competencies section of the Human Resources Management and Development System Guidelines in Florida's School Districts developed, after study and scientific research, by the Florida Council on Educational Management.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School. Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently. During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties. Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule. During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2 The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives. From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4 The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule. After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008. Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action." By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care. From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5 Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments. On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written. Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated: On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18, 20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9, 2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting. Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination. It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor. You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities: Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6] Refusal to meet with this administrator. Failure to adhere to school site procedures. Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written. At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable. Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7 After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students. On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated: This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block. On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment. On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator." As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal. Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8 On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended. On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination." On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics. At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28. Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 21st day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is sufficient "just cause" to warrant termination of Respondent's annual contract of employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Findings of Fact and Burke's prior disciplinary record, the undersigned concludes that Burke's chronic misconduct and series of continuing disciplinary problems on February 23, 2015 ( para. 9o.); May 7, 2015 ( para. 9q.); and May 12, 2015 ( para. 9r.), as well as Burke's performance evaluation from April 9, 2015 ( para. 9t.), permitted the School Board to dispense with the progressive discipline steps under the CBA since immediate and\or stronger action was reasonably necessary under Article V, Section 1B. of the CBA, and "just cause" existed for her termination. Burke's unabated misbehavior, even after several sit- downs and fair and repeated warnings, constituted sufficient legal grounds to permit the School Board to omit or skip steps in the progressive discipline process. See, generally, Quiller v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 171 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (concurring opinion, Osterhaus, J.) (The employee's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping steps of the progressive discipline policy.). Quiller was decided the summer of 2015 and provides an analogous set of circumstances. Relevant portions of Judge Osterhaus's concurring opinion are instructive and worth repeating here: By highlighting Ms. Quiller's rhetorical and disciplinary history, the Final Order disputes the Recommended Order's conclusion that "[t]here is no proof that the behavior at issue constitutes [5] 'severe acts of misconduct.'" Though the definition of "more severe acts" in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was left undefined, the School Board's human resource officer testified at the hearing that the School Board determines appropriate discipline based on how many times an incident has occurred, who the witnesses are, the severity of the incident, the amount of time that has occurred between incidents, and the employee's willingness to modify his or her behavior. Her testimony continued that "some of the most severe conduct" includes instances when an employee has failed to modify his or her more serious behavior after having been warned. In turn, the School Board's conclusion in this case was that Ms. Quiller's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping step three of the progressive discipline policy. So there wasn't "no proof" that Ms. Quiller's behavior constituted "more severe acts of misconduct" for purposes of the CBA, even if the ALJ thought that her acts weren't particularly severe. Deference is due to the School Board's decision with respect to its personnel decisions. Courts [6] have little room to define what constitutes "more severe acts of misconduct" as against those responsible for running the county's schools. See, e.g., Dep't of Prof. Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 1988) (giving great discretion to boards to determine discipline). Courts will not substitute their judgment "if valid reasons for the board's order exist in the record and reference is made thereto." Id. at 968. To that end, the School Board's identification of Ms. Quiller's bad language, discipline, and failure to modify her behavior probably supports the departure it took from the ALJ's recommended penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board accept and implement the superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent, Sue Burke. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2015.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lester Nathaniel Johnson, is the holder of teacher's certificate number 384068 issued by the State Department of Education. It is valid until June 30, 1990. He is a 1975 graduate of Bethune-Cookman College where he majored in history and sociology, and from Nova University in 1981 where he received a master's degree. Johnson first began teaching in the Dade County Public School System in September, 1975 and has taught in the System since that time. During school years 1981-82 and 1982-83 he was an instructor at Miami Lakes Junior High School (MLJHS) teaching social studies and history. During school year 1982-83 first period at MLJHS began at 8:45 a.m. and ended fifty-five minutes later at 9:40 a.m. Classes then changed and "homeroom" activities began at 9:45 a.m. and lasted ten minutes. At 9:55 a.m. a bell rang and students had five minutes to go to second period class which began at 10:00 a.m. The allegations in the notice of charges and administrative complaint relate to an alleged incident which occurred on the morning of March 23, 1983 on the school premises. As clarified by testimony in this cause, the "incident" could not have occurred any earlier than around 9:57 a.m. that morning in respondent's classroom during the break between homeroom and second period. The testimony also shows that after the incident, which took no more than a minute, the complainant would have had to leave the classroom, talk briefly with her girlfriend in the hallway, and still have time to reach a street adjacent to the school building approximately two hundred yards away in a minute or so, or by 9:59 a.m. Michelle Pinson was a thirteen-year-old seventh grader of MLJHS during the 1982-83 school year. According to Pinson, on the morning of March 23, 1983 she left her homeroom after the bell rang at 9:55 a.m. to attend her second period class, English. She related that she had to walk past respondent's classroom to get to her second period class, and that it normally took her around a minute to a minute and a half to reach Johnson's classroom. At the final hearing, Michelle claimed that while walking past his classroom that morning, he pulled her inside the room, which was empty, shut the door and began "kissing all on (her)" including her neck and face, and "feeling on (her)" including her breasts and genital area. However, some two weeks after the "incident", she had told an assistant state attorney under oath that Johnson had kissed her only on the neck and had not touched her in the genital area. When she started to leave the room, Pinson stated Johnson grabbed her right buttocks and told her not to tell anyone. According to Pinson, the whole incident took no more than a minute. Testimony from a non-interested witness, Arthur Diamond, a science teacher at MLJHS, confirmed the fact that Johnson went to the restroom after the 9:55 a.m. bell rang, chatted for a minute or two with Diamond, and could not have returned to his classroom until around 9:57 a.m. Therefore, if such an incident did in fact occur, it could not have happened until after 9:57 a.m. After leaving the classroom, the first person Michelle saw was Natalie Blackwell, a longtime friend and classmate, and related to her what had happened. Natalie attempted to corroborate Michelle's story, and stated that she saw a hand grab Michelle's buttocks as she left the classroom, and as she passed by the classroom she saw the hand belonged to Johnson. Natalie's version of the story must be tempered by several considerations. First she testified the incident occurred after lunch rather than in the morning. Secondly, she was a student in Johnson's class and had just been suspended for ten days for fighting. When she returned Johnson refused to allow her to do makeup work for the time she was suspended and consequently she received a failing grade. For this, Natalie had threatened to "get" Johnson. Finally, Natalie had also received several detentions from Johnson prior to the "incident" and was dating Michelle's brother at the same time. Therefore, her testimony is not found to be credible, and has been disregarded. "A little bit before" 10:00 a.m., Michelle was found walking down Ludlam Avenue by an instructor some two hundred yards or so from the main building. Michelle had walked that distance after she claimed the "incident" had occurred and after she had spoken to Natalie. The undersigned finds it highly unlikely that Michelle could have had an encounter with Johnson after 9:57 a.m., which lasted no more than a minute, then talked briefly with her friend in the hallway, and then walked some two hundred yards from the building, all within a span of a minute or so. After being stopped by the instructor on Ludlamd Avenue, Pinson returned to the main building and was seen by the assistant principal several minutes after 10:00 a.m. wandering in the hallway. He immediately approached her and noted she had tears in her eyes and was sobbing. Pinson told the assistant principal that she had an encounter with Johnson. Both went to the principal's office where an interview was conducted with Pinson, and later with Johnson. After conducting an investigation, school authorities turned the mattter over to petitioners, School Board of Dade County and Education Practices Commission (EPC), who then initiated these proceedings. Respondent denied the incident occurred and that he had not even seen Michelle during the break between homeroom and second period class. On the morning in question, Johnson had supervised a breakfast program for students from 8:00 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. in the cafeteria, taught a first period class form 8:45 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. When the bell rang to change classes, the students departed the classroom and Johnson then left his classroom to visit the restroom down the hall. As noted earlier, this was confirmed by another teacher, Arthur Diamond, who testified that Johnson followed him into the restroom right after the bell rang where they briefly chatted and then both departed, returning to their respective classrooms around 9:57 a.m. The evidence is sharply conflicting in this proceeding but it is found that no encounter between Johnson and Pinson occurred on the morning of March 23, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against respondent be DISMISSED and that he be reinstated and given back-pay retroactive to April 20, 1983. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse T. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 W. Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s five-day suspension from employment without pay with Petitioner based on the allegations in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami- Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. Gonzalez started volunteering for the School Board approximately 22 years ago. Eventually, after years of volunteering, Gonzalez was offered a paraprofessional position. Gonzalez worked as a paraprofessional at Sylvania Heights Elementary School (“Sylvania”) for the last seven years. During the 2018-2019 school year, Gonzalez was a pre-kindergarten paraprofessional at Sylvania. Gonzalez’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, assisting with the children when needed. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement under the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred August 22, 2019. On August 22, 2019, Gonzalez reported to work early around 7:00 a.m. and went to the Sylvania office to help. She was assigned to morning drop-off duty and instructed to assist the parents and students in the drop-off area. That morning, Gonzalez went to pick up pre-kindergarten children at the north entrance of the school. One pre-kindergarten student was upset and crying when his mother dropped him off at the car line. The student continued to cry as he got out of the car. Gonzalez walked the crying student to drop-off classroom number four, after he got out of the car. As Gonzalez walked the crying student to the classroom, the child continued to cry a lot. Gonzalez dropped off the crying student by forcibly placing him into classroom four with a push, and then continuing to go on to assist with another child. During the drop-off period, Janelle Fernandez-Ramos (“Fernandez- Ramos”), a Sylvania teacher, was in front of classroom twelve looking down the hall and saw Gonzalez drop off the child at classroom four. Fernandez- Ramos believes she saw Gonzalez tug the child by the arm. At the time, she shouted to Gonzalez, “don’t push him,” but Gonzalez did not hear her. That same morning, Barbara Soler (“Soler”), a Sylvania teacher, was standing in the middle of the interior hallway with Gonzalez. Soler was turned away and a foot away from Gonzalez’s left when she placed the crying child in classroom four. Soler heard Fernandez-Ramos scream “don’t push him,” and looked right to see the little boy crying standing in the doorway of classroom four. Soler did not see anything happen between Respondent and the little boy. Soler took the crying student to the end of the hallway. At the time Gonzalez dropped off the student, Damaris Medina (“Medina”) was in the classroom where the crying boy was dropped off. She stood approximately seven feet away facing Gonzalez. Medina clearly observed Gonzalez forcefully shove the crying student into her classroom, and Medina watched Gonzalez proceed on immediately after dropping him off. Later that day, Fernandez-Ramos reported to administration that she thought she saw a pushing incident between Gonzalez and a child. Afterwards, Principal Amor Reyes (“Reyes”) called Gonzalez to the office. Reyes informed Gonzalez that it had been reported that Gonzalez had pushed a child. Gonzalez denied the allegations. Hearing At the final hearing, Gonzalez admitted leaving the crying student in drop-off classroom number four and explained that she left immediately thereafter because she needed to continue helping with another child. Gonzalez credibly testified, “I did nothing.” She explained that she was neither frustrated nor upset that day and did not hear Fernandez-Ramos scream at her. Fernandez-Ramos testified that Gonzalez “tugged the child from the arm into the room.” Fernandez-Ramos explained that it was the beginning of the school day, and it was chaotic in the hallway. She also described the layout and explained that between where she was standing in front of classroom twelve and drop-off classroom four, there was a bathroom and two more classrooms. Fernandez-Ramos testified that she was not sure if she saw Gonzalez push the child because “I was further away; I wasn’t sure if that’s what I really saw.” Medina credibly confirmed and testified that Gonzalez shoved the crying boy into the classroom. Medina testified that her response to the incident was to look back at another teacher to see if she saw it. Medina also explained that she believed Gonzalez was either flustered or frustrated. Medina further testified, “I just think that she didn’t realize maybe the force that she used.” She also testified that the student did not fall and was not injured. She further clarified that once the crying student was in the room, Gonzalez kept going to grab another student. Medina repeated at hearing, “I don’t think she realized it.” Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action during her employment by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order issuing a reprimand to Respondent and awarding Respondent back pay for five workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2021. Michele Lara Jones, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132
