The Issue Whether the Petitioner has cause as set forth in the notice of specific charges to order that the Respondent's professional services contract not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools with the school district of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. North County Elementary School (North County) and Myrtle Grove Elementary School (Myrtle Grove) are public schools in Dade County, Florida. Respondent graduated from North Eastern Illinois University in 1978. She began her employment with the Petitioner at North County at the beginning of the 1987/88 school year. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system provides for periodic observations of a teacher's performance that is followed by an evaluation of that performance. The evaluator records what he or she considers to be observed deficiencies in the teacher's performance and provides a plan, referred to as a prescription, for performance improvement. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the TADS method was used to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent taught at North County during the 1987/88 school year. The principal of North County for that school year was Gertrude Pope. Ms. Pope evaluated Respondent's performance based on the TADS method and rated her overall performance as acceptable. Ms. Pope testified that Respondent had difficulty in classroom management during the 1987/88 school year, and that she tried to help Respondent improve her classroom management by giving her materials, having her observe other teachers who were good in classroom management, and by having her view a videotape on assertive discipline. Ms. Pope wanted Respondent to develop and use in her classroom an assertive discipline plan, which consists of strategies to maintain discipline in the classroom and specifies behavioral standards and the consequences for failing to adhere to those standards. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1988/89 school year was acceptable. In August 1989, Dr. Ruthann Marleaux became the principal at North County, a position she retained at the time of the formal hearing. On October 27, 1989, Respondent's left knee and left instep were injured at school when a child accidentally stepped on her foot. After that injury, Respondent had a significant number of absences from the classroom caused by pain and the buildup of fluid in her left knee. In February, 1990, Respondent underwent surgery to repair the damage to her knee and was placed on worker's compensation leave. Following that injury, Respondent used a cane or crutches to walk. On May 11, 1990, Respondent returned to her teaching duties at North County. This return to work was approved by the Petitioner's worker's compensation department. Following a conference with the Respondent, Dr. Marleaux, and a coordinator of the worker's compensation department, it was agreed that certain modifications would be made to accommodate Respondent's knee problem. Dr. Marleaux arranged for someone to escort the children in Respondent's class back to the classroom after lunch and after physical education. An aide was assigned to assist Respondent during the first week of her return to work. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1989/90 school year was acceptable. Following several days of absences towards the beginning of the 1990/91 school year, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent by memorandum dated October 10, 1990, that her absences were adversely impacting the educational environment and the progress of the children assigned to her class. The memorandum contained the following directives pertaining to future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to me or in my absence, Mr. Peter Harden, assistant principal. This is in accordance with procedures delineated in the site book. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note stating an unconditional medical release to return to full duties presented to me upon your return to the site. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. There are 180 days in a school year. During the 1990/91 school year, Respondent was absent a total of 101 days. Despite those absences, Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1990/91 school year was acceptable. Respondent underwent surgery again on her left knee in March, 1992. After another worker's compensation leave, Respondent was assigned a teaching position at Myrtle Grove under the supervision of Cecil Daniels, the school principal. Petitioner was advised that, as of June 4, 1992, the following restrictions were placed on Respondent's activities: No weight bearing for more than 20 minutes at one time on the left knee. No squatting. No kneeling. No climbing. No lifting more than 25 pounds at one time. The duties assigned to Respondent were within the medical restrictions delineated by Respondent's doctor. On June 11, 1992, Respondent refused to assume her assigned duties at Myrtle Grove. Respondent asserted that she was entitled to light duty employment and that she had been assigned too many children. As a result of Respondent's refusal, Mr. Daniels dismissed her for the day and employed a substitute teacher for the day. On June 12, 1992, Mr. Daniels held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent concerning this incident. There was no evidence as to Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1991/92 school year. 1992/93 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was again assigned to Myrtle Grove for the beginning of the 1992/93 school year. Shortly after school began, Mr. Daniels discovered that Respondent had failed to follow school procedures at the end of the 1991/92 school year pertaining to the records that are kept for students. Mr. Daniels had a conference for the record with Respondent on September 30, 1992, at which he discussed this deficiency with her and also discussed with her two concerns he had about her class management. One concern was the result of a complaint he had received from a parent who reported that Respondent had not attended to an injury to a student. The second concern was that there had been several fights between students in her class. On or about October 8, 1992, Respondent was transferred from Myrtle Grove back to North County. Mr. Daniels had asked the district office to make this transfer. By memorandum dated October 16, 1992, Dr. Marleaux advised Respondent in writing that the directives pertaining to absences from the work site as set forth in her memorandum dated October 10, 1990, were still in effect. Petitioner maintains an employee assistance program (EAP) as a resource for employees who have personal or family problems that may be impacting an employee's job performance. On October 23, 1992, Dr. Marleaux referred Respondent to the EAP because of marked changes in Respondent's mood. Respondent had been seen crying in the classroom and in the teacher's lounge. She was visibly upset and physically shaking. Respondent testified that she was seen by a mental health professional as a result of that referral, but there was no evidence that Respondent benefited by the referral. Respondent testified that she did not think she needed help at the time the referral was made. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on October 26, 1992. There was no evidence that the timing of this observation, in light of Respondent's behavior that resulted in the EAP referral, was inappropriate. Dr. Marleaux's observation was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the category of classroom management. Respondent began the instructional activities of the class 20 minutes late and ended the instruction 15 minutes early. There were a number of off-task students to whom Respondent did not respond either verbally or non-verbally. Although Respondent had classroom rules, it was Dr. Marleaux's observation that the behavioral expectations had not been made clear to the students and that Respondent was not implementing her assertive discipline plan. There was a contention that Dr. Marleaux was overly critical in her observations of Respondent. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on October 26, 1992. Dr. Marleaux's observation report included a prescription to remediate Respondent's unsatisfactory performance. This prescription consisted of a number of assignments that Respondent was to complete by a date certain. She was to observe a teacher with a successful assertive discipline plan, develop five strategies used by that teacher to improve classroom management, and review her assertive discipline plan with the assistant principal. She was also to complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and to develop lesson plans which required full periods of instruction. The respective deadlines for completing these assignments were between November 6 and November 16, 1992. These prescribed assignments are found to be reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent to improve her job performance. Peter Harden was assistant principal at North County during the 1992/93 school year. Mr. Harden formally observed Respondent in the classroom on November 24, 1992. His observation was between 1:30 p.m. and 2:11 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following his observation, Mr. Harden prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in classroom management as unacceptable. Mr. Harden observations were similar to those of Dr. Marleaux during her observation the previous month. Mr. Harden observed that off-task students were neither verbally nor non- verbally redirected. Respondent began the instructional activities 20 minutes late and ended the lesson 19 minutes early. Respondent did not make behavioral expectations clear to the students. The students did not appear to be aware of the class rules and regulations. The observation report contained prescribed assignments that Mr. Harden believed would help Respondent improve her deficiencies in classroom management. A deadline of December 14, 1992, was set for Respondent to complete these assignments. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Mr. Harden fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 24, 1992. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 14, 1992, a midyear conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Marleaux with the Respondent and her union representative in attendance. Respondent's TADS evaluations following the formal observations by Dr. Marleaux in October, 1992, and by Mr. Harden in November, 1992, were discussed. Respondent had not completed her prescribed assignments at the time of this conference because she had been ill. Dr. Marleaux extended the deadlines for completing the remaining assignments. Respondent was given notice that if she ended the 1992/93 school year in a prescriptive status, there could be possible employment consequences such as a return to annual contract status or termination of employment. During the conference, Respondent asked permission to observe a handicapped teacher. In response to that request, Dr. Marleaux arranged for Respondent to observe a teacher at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School who had to use crutches to walk. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on January 13, 1993, between 12:55 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in the following areas as being unacceptable: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning based on her observation that Respondent did not follow at least half of her lesson plan as required by TADS. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that out of a one hour lesson plan, Respondent taught for only 20 minutes. Dr. Marleaux observed that there was a lot of wasted class time. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction based on her observation that Respondent's teaching methods confused the students, she did not use the media resources skillfully, and she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies. Respondent did not make any adjustment in her instruction, despite the confusion of the students. The observation report prepared by Dr. Marleaux following the observation in January 1993, contained prescribed assignments that she believed would help Respondent improve the deficiencies noted in her report. She was to write detailed lesson plans and turn them in to the principal weekly. She was to prepare all activities prior to teaching the lesson. She was to utilize the instructional activities recommended by the textbook. She was to follow the instructional methods outlined in the teacher's edition of the textbook. She was to observe a master teacher. These assignments were to be completed by January 29, 1993. Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on January 13, 1993. The assignments prescribed were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Norma Bossard was Petitioner's Executive Director for Foreign Language Arts and Reading and an experienced TADS evaluator. Ms. Bossard and Dr. Marleaux simultaneously observed Respondent in her classroom on February 19, 1993, and thereafter independently evaluated her performance. This review, referred to as an External Review, was during a language arts lesson between 10:45 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she did not develop ideas and information in a meaningful and orderly manner and because there was a lot of wasted class time. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies and strengths. Out of 23 students, only two students completed the assignment. Respondent was oblivious that students were cheating. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not examine work completed by students and she did not monitor whether students were learning. Respondent was prescribed activities in an effort to aid her in remediating her unsatisfactory performance. She was given a prescribed lesson format for language arts. She was to observe a seasoned teacher. She was given a series of books called "Teaching and Learning the Language Arts". Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux and Ms. Bossard fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance during their external review on February 19, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On March 29, 1993, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent in writing that her performance during the 1992/93 school year had been unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. She was advised that the failure to correct these performance deficiencies prior to April 13, 1994, could result in the termination of her employment at the close of the 1993/94 school year. In the spring of 1993, Respondent entered Charter Hospital, a psychiatric facility, for deep depression and anxiety. She was absent for the remainder of the school year since she was physically and mentally unable to work. On April 2, 1993, Dr. Marleaux again notified Respondent that her absences were adversely affecting the educational environment and academic progress of her students. Respondent was again directed to communicate her absences to the principal or assistant principal, to document her absences by a medical note from her treating physician, to provide a medical release to return to full duties, to provide lesson plans for the substitute teacher when she is absent, and to take leave when future absences appeared imminent. During the 1992/93 school year, Respondent was absent 78-1/2 days. On May 18, 1993, Respondent was notified of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memoranda in lieu of a conference-for-the-record because she was on leave. Respondent's overall evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was unacceptable. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Because she had failed to complete the assignments that had been assigned to her in an effort to correct the deficiencies in her unacceptable performance, Respondent's salary level was frozen at the end of the 1992/93 school year so that she did not receive any raise for the 1993/94 school year. 1993/94 School Year Respondent was cleared through the Office of Professional Standards to return to work at North County on August 25, 1993. The medical restrictions delineated by her doctor were implemented. In an effort to reduce the amount of walking she would have to do, Respondent was given a parking space close to the entrance to her classroom and she was given assistance in taking her students to and from lunch, to the library, and to the physical education field. Respondent was also given the same directives pertaining to absences that had been given to her on previous occasions, including in Dr. Marleaux's memorandum of October 10, 1990. Respondent requested permission to observe a teacher in a wheelchair. This request was denied because Respondent's doctor had prohibited Respondent from being in a wheelchair. The doctor preferred that she walk, with crutches if necessary, to reduce muscle atrophy. Beginning September 8, 1993, Respondent was absent again for several weeks. On September 22, 1993, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent that the deadline for her to complete her prescribed assignments would be extended until October 8, 1993. This extension benefited Respondent since it gave her more time to remediate her deficiencies. In October, 1993, Respondent requested, through her treating physician, that she be transferred to another school, that she be given vocational rehabilitation, or that she be given a leave of absence. These requests were denied. Although Respondent argued that the denial of these requests was unreasonable, the evidence in this proceeding failed to establish that contention. Petitioner made arrangements for Respondent to have a full- time classroom aide for the remainder of the year. After a full-time aide was assigned for Respondent, Dr. Marleaux required the Respondent's aide to leave the room during formal observations. Respondent asserts that this was unfair and evidences Dr. Marleaux's bias against the Respondent. This assertion is rejected since the Petitioner established that the removal of the aide during a formal observation is standard procedure and allows the students to focus on the teacher without being distracted by the presence of the aide. On November 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Joyce Daniels, an assistant principal at North County. This observation was during a fourth grade math class and was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. Based on her observations, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: classroom management and techniques of instruction. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that Respondent appeared to be unaware of certain students who were being disruptive and others who were not on task. Respondent did not redirect the off-task students either verbally or non- verbally. She was not following her assertive discipline plan. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use calculators as recommended in the teacher's manual and because she wrote on the board in a manner that the students were unable to see. Ms. Daniels prescribed assignments to help Respondent improve her unacceptable performance. She was to observe two of the teachers at the school and she was to view the assertive discipline plan videos and review the assertive discipline workbook. She was to meet with the media specialist for help with the use of media. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Ms. Daniels fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 2, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 3, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux. This observation was from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during her fourth grade math class. Based on her observations, Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent's performance as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made substantial errors during the course of the lesson that created confusion on the part of the students. Respondent did not respond to the students who did not understand the lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use media resources skillfully. She did not use the calculators that were recommended and which were available in the school. She did not have her charts on the blackboard prior to the lesson. When she put the charts on the blackboard, she sat directly in front of them and some of the children could not see. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not consistently utilize the consequences in her assertive discipline plan when students failed to adhere to standards of conduct. The students were punished with different consequences for similar misbehavior. Dr. Marleaux heard Respondent make caustic comments to students. Dr. Marleaux observed that these comments drew attention to these students and embarrassed one of them. Dr. Marleaux again prescribed assignments designed to remediate Respondent's unacceptable performance. The date for submission of her lesson plans was changed to Thursday at Respondent's request. She was to meet with the guidance counselor to learn strategies that would avoid sarcasm and embarrassment to students. She was to meet with the media specialist to learn techniques in the use of media. It was recommended that she use an overhead projector. She was to observe another math teacher who had been helping her. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on December 3, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 13, 1993, Dr. Marleaux held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance assessments and assistance and to discuss possible action by the School District if remediation were not attained. Respondent was apprised that unremediated performance deficiencies must be reported to the Department of Education and that she may not be reappointed to her teaching position for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent was formally observed by Joyce Daniels in January, 1994. In her observation report, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent's performance as being acceptable in all categories. Respondent re-injured her left knee when she fell in February, 1994. Respondent asked permission to use a wheelchair following this fall. Because the information that the school had received from her doctor reflected that Respondent should not use a wheelchair, Dr. Marleaux told Respondent not to use a wheelchair at North County. Respondent subsequently began using a wheelchair, and Dr. Marleaux did not object. During 1994, Respondent was given scheduled time to elevate her leg and put ice on her knee. On March 28, 1994, Respondent was again observed in an external review by Dr. Marleaux and Dr. E. Trausche, an administrator and TADS evaluator employed by Petitioner. This observation was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. during a mathematics lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Trausche rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. The activities in the teacher's edition were not accomplished. She did not use the suggested materials to accomplish the activities. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used erroneous terms in her mathematics lessons and did not seem to fully understand the fractions lesson she was teaching. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management because she did not address off-task student behavior. She did not redirect the students either verbally or non-verbally. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her demonstrations were all abstract. She did not utilize methodology outlined in the teacher's edition or teaching aides that were recommended. Her instructional methods did not meet the needs or abilities of the students. She blocked the students' view of work that was on the chalkboard. Many students were confused as to the lesson and some did not even try to do the work. She distracted students by talking to them while they were working. Respondent did not examine the students' work at any time during the lesson. Respondent was again prescribed activities to help her in overcoming her unacceptable performance. She was to observe another teacher. She was to work with the competency-based curriculum math facilitator. The grade level chairperson would work with her. She was to observe another teacher for the use of manipulatives. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on March 28, 1994. No findings are made as to the reasonableness of the observations made by Dr. Trausche since Dr. Trausche did not testify at the formal hearing. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On April 1, 1994, the Superintendent notified Respondent by letter that she had not corrected her deficiencies and he was recommending to the School Board that she not be issued a new professional contract. On April 13, 1994, the School Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was not recommended for continued employment by Dr. Marleaux. Respondent testified that on the last day she worked in May, 1994, she began to disassociate and was incoherent. Respondent described disassociating as follows: It's where you're physically located close to someone but it's, your perception is that you are some where else. I could hear her voice but it was, sounded as if I was blocks away or something. Like I could barely hear what was being said of people. It was really frightening. (Transcript, page 218, line 22 through page 219, line 2.) Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memorandum dated June 3, 1994, in lieu of a conference-for-the record, due to Respondent's absences. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was absent for 70 days. On many occasions, Respondent was informally observed both at Myrtle Grove and at North County by the same principals and assistant principals who had observed her formally. Respondent's students were often severely off-task and disruptive of other classes. Respondent's class was noisy and out of control. Security monitors frequently came to Respondent's class to get the students under control. Respondent seemed oblivious to the class management problems. Respondent was seen crying three different times. There did not seem to be much teaching and learning taking place. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1992/93 school year, despite many attempts to assist her with activities to remediate her deficiencies. Respondent asserts that Dr. Marleaux's refusal to allow her to use a wheelchair constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition following the fall. Respondent also asserts that the denial of her request for a transfer, for rehabilitation therapy, or for a leave of absence constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition. While the Respondent's testimony supports that contention, there is no medical evidence to support this self-serving testimony. The testimony of Dr. Marleaux and Dr. Annunziata established that the school reasonably accommodated Respondent's condition and did not ask Respondent to perform any duties that exceeded the medical restrictions that had been set by her doctors. Respondent also testified as to certain statements and comments that Dr. Marleaux made to her. 1/ The undersigned finds, based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the totality of the evidence, that Dr. Marleaux's denial that she ever made these statements is more credible than the testimony of the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of August, 1995.
The Issue Should Respondent's tenure status be removed and he be terminated from employment with Hillsborough Community College because of the matters set out in the Amended Statement of Charges and Petition For Dismissal filed in this matter?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Petitioner, Hillsborough Community College, was a public institution of higher education, with four campuses, two extension centers, three environmental centers, and several other operations located in Hillsborough County, Florida. Respondent, Professor Joseph P. Boyle, was a tenured faculty member on the instructional staff located at the Dale Mabry campus. He has been with the College for more than 20 years. The College's Board of Trustees ordinarily meets once a month at the Administrative Center on Davis Island. The meetings are open to the public, are publicized at least a week in advance, and are based upon a written agenda. Frequently, members of the public attend the meetings as do some faculty members, administrative staff and the press. The College President and the College Attorney also attend. At these meeting, the Board generally treats policy matters, expenditures, approval of consultant contracts, and audit reports, and there is also a provision for public comment. It is not at all unusual or inappropriate for Board members to be contacted by students, faculty members or the public about school matters. Joaquin M. Campo, the President and Chairman of a Tampa engineering firm, served as Board President from July, 1990 to July, 1991. He has been contacted by outsiders about matters and when that happens, he tries, as best he can, to follow up on the contact. It is his practice to respond to any personal contact and to any signed letter which, he immediately forwards to the College President for investigation. To the best of his recollection, Respondent had previously called him about something into which he made inquiry and thereafter, Respondent began to communicate with him regularly on a variety of matters. This did not annoy him at all, and in each case, he tried to get the answer to the Respondent's problem. On August 27, 1990, Mr. Campo received a letter from the Respondent complaining about comments purportedly made by President Paloumpis. If true, these allegations would be considered serious. Professor Boyle followed the first letter with phone calls and repeated additional letters, as a result of which, Mr. Campo asked him to come up with some hard evidence in support of his allegations. Campo made this request several times, and no such evidence was ever forthcoming. Finally, Campo asked the College's Auditor, Mr. Watkins, who reports directly to the Board of Trustees, to look into Boyle's allegations and report what he found. Mr. Campo chose the Auditor so there would be no chance of improper influence being asserted by anyone else. At the same time, Mr. Campo also contacted the Respondent and asked him to cooperate with Mr. Watkins. By letter dated September 13, 1990, he reiterated that request in writing. At no time did Professor Boyle indicate he would not cooperate with the Auditor. At the time he brought the Auditor in, Mr. Campo had not formed any opinion as to Boyle's allegations. Sometime later, in February, 1991, Mr. Campo received another letter from Respondent complaining about the mechanics of selection for appointment of the head of a department at the college. When he looked into these allegations, he found them to be untrue and, in fact, that that faculty member ostensibly appointed, Dr. Adams, had not been so appointed and had never applied for the position. Mr. Campo so responded to Mr. Boyle in writing and thereafter received another letter from the Respondent, dated February 22, 1991, which in a disrespectful and berating manner, scolded Mr. Campo for his reply and demanded an apology. Because this letter was incorrect and insulting, Mr. Campo advised Professor Boyle of his feelings. As it appears, however, this faculty member, Dr. Adams, was subsequently appointed Department head. Thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1991, Mr. Boyle requested Mr. Campo resign as Chairman of the Board of trustees, citing alleged dereliction of duty and referring to nonexistent secret letters. That same day, Mr. Campo wrote to Professor Boyle and again asked him to come forward with proof to support his allegations and set a deadline of March 22, 1991 for him to do so. In writing this letter, Mr. Campo was trying to do his duty as Chairman to either prove or disprove allegations of wrongdoing and put them to rest. He got no response to the letter or any of the proof requested. All during this time, Mr. Watkins also was having his difficulties in dealing with Mr. Boyle regarding the investigation he had been requested to undertake. Immediately after being asked by Mr. Campo to look into Boyle's allegations, Watkins received a call from Mr. Boyle in which Boyle said Mr. Campo had asked him to meet with Watkins and provide the information. Boyle agreed to do so, but after several days, Watkins still had not again heard from Boyle. Though Watkins tried to contact Boyle, he found Boyle had no home phone and was only on campus at certain hours. Mr. Watkins went to the Dale Mabry campus during Boyle's office hours. When he arrived at Boyle's office, he found the door closed but he could hear voices from within. He knocked twice and a voice called out, "Who are you and what do you want?" When Watkins identified himself, Boyle opened the door, finished the phone call he was engaged in, and spoke with him. Boyle said he had not had time to collect the background information but that his letter to Mr. Campo stated the facts. When Mr. Watkins pointed out these were not facts but conclusions, Boyle agreed to get facts and said he would get back with Watkins in one week. Their agreement called for Professor Boyle to come to Watkins office with the information, but one day before the scheduled meeting, Boyle called to postpone it. Nonetheless, he showed up the next day without any independent proof, reasserted his position that his allegations spoke for themselves, and questioned Mr. Watkins' authority to conduct the inquiry. When Mr. Watkins explained his charter, Boyle dropped the subject. Mr. Boyle never did come up with any supporting proof of his allegations even though Mr. Watkins gave him several extensions of time. In fact, Boyle failed to contact Mr. Watkins again and when Watkins tried to reach him and couldn't, he again went to Boyle's office to see him. After Watkins waited for a lengthy time during which Professor Boyle dealt with students, Boyle finally stated he didn't have any time to deal with him. He stated he had been told by an unnamed party not to talk with Watkins, and left. Mr. Watkins reported to Mr. Campo both orally and in writing regarding the results of his efforts. Mr. Campo advised Mr. Watkins not to pressure Boyle too much because they really wanted the information. Finally, on November 6, 1990, Mr. Watkins again wrote to Professor Boyle asking for documentation supporting his allegations. Mr. Boyle neither responded with the documents nor requested more time, and Mr. Watkins has never received any documentation from Boyle in support of his charges. While Boyle cooperated at first, his attitude deteriorated to the point he was arrogant and uncooperative, and considering Watkins was working at the direction of the Chairman, even insubordinate. Finally, on November 19, 1990, Watkins wrote to Mr. Campo outlining the results of his efforts and the problems he encountered dealing with Professor Boyle. Thereafter, he was released from this investigation and has not, to this day, received any supplemental information from Professor Boyle. By letter dated March 27, 1991, Mr. Campo ordered Mr. Boyle to meet with him on April 9, 1991 at 2:00 PM in the College Administrative Office on Davis Island and to bring whatever support he had for the charges he had made. Mr. Campo made it clear this was not an optional meeting, and the Respondent's failure to appear would be considered to be insubordination. Nonetheless, Professor Boyle did not appear for the meeting nor did he either call in advance to seek a postponement or provide a subsequent explanation for his absence. On April 11, 1991, Mr. Campo again wrote to Mr. Boyle, pointing out the failure to appear on April 9 was insubordination, asking for an explanation in writing, and directing him to appear in person at the Administrative Office on Davis Island on April 22, 1991 at 2:00 PM. This letter also advised Boyle that if he could not make it, he was to advise Campo by phone no later than noon on April 22. Boyle neither showed up nor explained. April 9, 19, and 22, 1991 were work days when Professor Boyle could be expected to perform his duties. As Chairman of the College's Board of Trustees, Mr. Campo had the authority to direct any college employee to meet with him. His directions to Boyle to meet with him on those days were, therefore, lawful orders. Mr. Campo was present at the time and place scheduled for the meetings which he directed Professor Boyle to attend. To this day, Boyle has not explained his failure to appear as directed. Campo sought those meetings with Professor Boyle to get the facts surrounding the allegations Boyle had made. They were not designed to create a situation for which disciplinary action to get rid of Professor Boyle could be initiated. As a result of Professor Boyle's failure to appear as directed, Mr. Campo asked President Paloumpis to look into the matter to see if any action was appropriate. As a result, in June, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis recommended to the Board of Trustees that action to remove Boyle for insubordination be initiated. Mr. Campo agreed. At the open Board meeting where this matter was addressed, the Board, pursuant to discussion of the matter which had been published in advance on the regular publicized agenda, unanimously approved the recommendation to dismiss Professor Boyle. The Board meeting was publicized in advance along with the agenda, and Professor Boyle had the opportunity to appear before the Board to defend or explain his actions. He failed to do so. There is no evidence of any attempt to discharge Boyle because of his outspokenness. When Dr. Paloumpis received the copy of Professor Boyle's letter of complaint which Mr. Campo sent to him, he, also, wanted the matter looked into. At no time did he attempt to impede Watkins' investigation or, in fact, to speak with Watkins about it. As an administrator, he has been accused by others before of making bad decisions and of being unfair. He never takes such accusations personally, nor did he act on this allegation. His initiation of disciplinary action against Professor Boyle was taken at Mr. Campo's suggestion because of Boyle's insubordination. He reviewed the investigation and the succeeding failures by Boyle to meet with Mr. Campo and satisfied himself that grounds for discipline existed. Only then did he set the wheels in motion. On April 30, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis wrote to professor Boyle directing him to come to Paloumpis' office at 8:30 AM on May 3, 1991, normal business hours, to provide a doctor's certificate because Professor Boyle had a habit of calling in sick or having someone do it for him. Under the terms of the contract between the College and the union, the College has the right to have the faculty member submit to an independent medical examination under certain conditions. He also directed Boyle to contact his department head, Dr. Adams, by May 3, 1991, to set up the appointment with the doctor. Professor Boyle did not show up at either place on May 3, nor did he contact Dr. Paloumpis or anyone on his staff about it. Thereafter, on May 6, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis wrote to Professor Boyle asking for an explanation of his failure to appear as directed by him and by Mr. Campo. In this letter, he also gave Mr. Boyle an order to contact Ms. Bone, an executive assistant in Dr. Paloumpis' office to set up a time, at Professor Boyle's convenience, to meet with Paloumpis at Paloumpis' office. He also warned Professor Boyle that if he failed to appear, he, Paloumpis would recommend Dr. Boyle's suspension as a disciplinary action. Professor Boyle has never responded to this letter or complied with the directions therein. Dr. Paloumpis thereafter prepared the Petition for Dismissal and Explanation of Rights form and tried to serve them on the professor by regular US mail, by certified mail, and by process server. That copy sent by regular US mail was not returned undelivered, but the copy sent by certified mail was not accepted. The process server was able to effect service of the Petition on Professor Boyle, at his home, at 1:20 PM on June 28, 1991. It must also be noted that some of the letters to Professor Boyle which requested meeting with him were, in addition to being sent by mail, included in the envelope with his individual pay checks. When these checks were cashed, it was clear indication that Professor Boyle had received the meeting notices. None of the letters, all of which were also sent by US mail, were ever returned undelivered except for the copy of the Petition sent by certified mail. In addition to all the above, in the Fall of 1991, Dr. Paloumpis learned that several students had complained about Professor Boyle's behavior. Paloumpis received a call from the Dale Mabry campus that complaints had been received which had been put in writing and referred to the vice president in charge of that campus. When he asked what was going on, the complaints were referred to him. As a result of these complaints, Professor Boyle's supervisors recommended to Dr. Paloumpis that Boyle be placed on administrative leave because the pattern and manner of his relationship with his students indicated it would be better were he out of the classroom. Dr. Paloumpis' primary concern was for the students, many of whom wanted to drop the course they were taking from Professor Boyle. To do so, however, would be, for many of them, a financial and academic harship. Paloumpis wanted to avoid this, and as a result, Professor Boyle was relieved of his teaching duties and an adjunct professor brought in to teach the remainder of the course. This solved the students' problems and the complaints stopped. As a result of this reported aberrant classroom behavior by Professor Boyle, Dr. Paloumpis prepared the additional charges which were incorporated in the Amended Petition to Dismiss which he also submitted to the Board of Trustees. By memo dated September 23, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis notified Professor Boyle he was being placed on administrative leave with pay and that the new charges were being added to the Petition. At the same time, he notified Professor Boyle of his right to attend the Board meeting at which the additional charges were to be discussed. The charges were made an agenda item which was published and distributed. Professor Boyle did not appear at the Board meeting but was represented by counsel, Mr. Merkle. The Board heard the evidence relating to the additional charge and the presentation by Mr. Merkle on behalf of the professor. It nonetheless voted unanimously to add the new charge to the Petition for Dismissal. At no time has Professor Boyle ever given Dr. Paloumpis or any representative of the College any explanation of his allegedly aberrant classroom behavior which prompted the additional charge, save the presentation by Mr. Merkle at the Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Professor Joseph P. Boyle be discharged from employment as a tenured faculty member at Hillsborough Community College for gross insubordination. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Breckenridge, Jr., Esquire 2502 Rocky Point Road, Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33607 Professor Joseph P. Boyle P.O. Box 327 Champlain, New York 12919 Robert W. Merkle, Esquire (Courtesy Copy) Merkle & Magri, P.A. 750 West Courtney Campbell Causeway, #1120 Tampa, Florida 33607 Martha K. Covington College Attorney Hillsborough Community College P. O. Box 31127 Tampa, Florida 33631-3127
Findings Of Fact Respondent had been employed by Petitioner as a teacher's aide for approximately eight years, and was so employed at the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. She was terminated by Petitioner at its meeting on December 8 1982. Respondent had 34-1/2 days of absences without accrued leave during October, November, and December, 1982. Most of the early absences were authorized by Dr. Patrick Gray, a personnel official of Petitioner's. On November 3, 1982, Dr. Gray informed Respondent that she was at that time on unauthorized leave and gave her ten days to request leave or face charges of abandoning her position (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent's failure to comply with this ultimatum led to her discharge. Respondent had serious personal problems during this period. Petitioner attempted to obtain psychiatric assistance for her, which she rejected. Respondent conceded that she abandoned her position, citing low pay and Petitioner's failure to promote her. She voiced these and other grievances with the school system, all of which are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming Respondent's discharge from its employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ms. Mary A. Lilly 14990 Northeast 10 Court Miami, Florida 33161 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Joseph F. Connolly, II, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida under Certificate Number 393556, in the areas of public service and E.M.R. medical technology. On May 25, 1982, Respondent was employed as a teacher by Mid-Florida Technical Institute (MFTI), a part of the Orange County, Florida, School District. For a period of time prior to late 1981 or early 1982, Respondent had been teaching at an off-campus facility of this school, but at about that time he was brought onto the main campus and assigned to clerical duties not related to teaching. He was, however, on the rolls as a teacher and paid as such, and maintained his teacher credentials and license. On January 22, 1982, Respondent submitted a request for military leave in order to engage in Army Reserve training to extend from January 29 through February 15, 1982. Attached to this request was a set of military orders signed by a Captain Decker. Due to illness, this leave was not taken by Respondent. On May 25, 1982, Respondent again submitted a request for leave for military duty for the period June 7-16, 1982. This request was given to Respondent's supervisor, Chester F. Dalton, who asked that Respondent wait while he checked with the school director concerning the need for military orders to accompany the request. This second request was not, at the time, supported by military orders. The director, Mr. Stephens, indicated that orders were required, which information Mr. Dalton passed on to Respondent. Within two or three days, Respondent brought in a set of orders bearing the signature of Captain Deck and personally handed them to Mr. Dalton. Mr. Dalton gave them to his secretary, Mrs. Zimmer, to process. Mrs. Zimmer, who has been married to a military member for many years and is familiar with the basics of military orders, was not comfortable with these. They appeared to her to have been altered, and, when she held these and the orders which accompanied the January leave request up to the light, she observed that they were identical except for the dates and the last two letters in the signing official's name. Mrs. Zimmer brought her suspicions to the attention of Mr. Dalton, who, in turn, took them to Mr. Stephens, who, in turn, took them to Dr. James L. Scaggs, Associate Superintendent for Employee Relations of the Orange County Schools. Dr. Scaggs suggested the school officials verify the orders and, in the interim, notify Respondent that his pay would be held up pending verification. When the inquiry, outlined above, revealed the orders were invalid, Dr. Scaggs forwarded a report of the circumstances to Petitioner. Inquiry of Captain Raymond K. Carter, executive Officer of Respondent's Reserve unit, revealed the orders were invalid. There was no Captain Deck assigned to the unit, nor was there any training period scheduled for the period June 7-16, 1982. After a brief inquiry, the Reserve organization determined to take no action against Respondent, but to leave action to his employers. In the interim, on June 7, 1982, Mr. Dalton received another leave request for the period June 7-16, 1982, dated June 3, 1982, this time not for military training, but for Red Cross training to retain certification in his field of teaching. Attached to this request was an unsigned note requesting that the May 25 leave request be retrieved and returned in the attached envelope and this latter one substituted. Because, however, it is school board policy not to pay teachers to take certification training during school session time, this June 3 request was disapproved. By this time, also, the May 25 request had been approved by Mr. Stephens and had been forwarded to the superintendent's office for approval. Consequently, the May 25 leave request, which had false orders attached to it, was approved, and the June 3 request was denied. When the June 3 request was received on June 7, Respondent had presumably departed on leave which, under either request, was to begin on June 7, and no effort was made to contact him. There is no evidence to indicate other than that when Respondent submitted the orders to go with the May 25 leave request he knew they were false and that, therefore, his application was false, and it is so found. School officials consider the filing of false documents as definitely reducing Respondent's future effectiveness as a teacher, since it would render all future documents he might submit, of whatever nature, suspect. A teacher whose reports and communications cannot be accepted as true within the school system cannot function effectively within the system. Respondent urged in argument that his utilization as a file clerk at the time the leave request was submitted, and not as a teacher, takes him outside the issue of his effectiveness as a teacher. Without determining that legal issue here, it is nonetheless determined that while he was not, on March 25, 1982, being utilized by MFTI as a teacher, he was under contract as a teacher, had been employed as a teacher, was being paid as a teacher, and was licensed as a teacher. Under these conditions, therefore, he was a teacher and may be considered as such for the purposes of this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license to teach in the State of Florida be suspended fob two years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 15th day of October, 1983. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esq. Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph F. Connolly, II 4218 Arajo Court Orlando, Florida 32812 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The 1978-79 school year is respondent's sixth year as a music teacher in petitioner's employ. She attained continuing contract status in 1975-76. Since she has worked for petitioner, she has divided her time between two elementary schools. Joseph Charles Galocy, S. Edward Williams, Jr., and Albertha C. Arrington, all principals under whom respondent has worked, have found her attendance and her performance as a whole satisfactory. In the fall of 1978, she was assigned to Nathan Young and, for the first time, to Primary C. When she reported to Nathan Young at the beginning of the 1978 fall term, she spoke to Albertha C. Arrington, principal of Nathan Young, about her schedule for the upcoming school year. Ms. Arrington telephoned Dr. Charlie Williams, principal of Primary C, to discuss respondent's schedule. In the course of this telephone conversation, Dr. Williams "had a temper tantrum," yelled at Ms. Arrington and called her stupid. Ms. Arrington hung up but tried again another day; on her third attempt, Dr. Williams said something to the effect that he did not care what respondent's schedule was. Ms. Arrington then decided that respondent should teach Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at Nathan Young and Tuesdays and Thursdays at Primary C. On her way to school on Tuesday, August 29, 1978, respondent had car trouble. She called Primary C and told a secretary, Mrs. Moss, that she was stranded and would not be in. The following Tuesday, September 5, 1978, respondent called Primary C and told another secretary, Mrs. Olliff, that she was staying out because of illness. She had severe stomach pains that day and went to see a physician for advice. On September 26, 1978, respondent was unable to keep food down and again visited a physician's office instead of meeting her classes. Respondent was absent from Primary C on Thursday, September 20, 1978, and on the following Thursday, October 3, 1978. On both days she was ill and asked her physician to prescribe medication. From the beginning of the school year through October 3, 1978, respondent missed only one day's work at Nathan Young. In the opinion of Dr. Charles C. James, respondent's absences from Primary C, in the fall of 1978, were medically necessary. While she was working at Primary C, respondent felt harassed by Dr. Williams, the principal. He told her that the piano was too loud; that she should use the record player instead. When she used the record player, he told her to use the piano. He followed her down the hall. Respondent was tense and anxious; and became upset that she was not allowed to teach the way she had taught the five preceding years. Dr. Williams was in and out of her classroom, interrupting her in mid-sentence and in mid-song. He ordered her out of classes she was conducting, leaving classes unattended. On October 4, 1978, respondent went to see Dr. Dulin, an administrator who has charge of music instruction for petitioner. She complained to Dr. Dulin that Dr. Charlie Williams had caused such disruption of her classes and made working conditions at Primary C so unpleasant that she became physically ill at the prospect of reporting for work there, and she asked for a transfer. Dr. Dulin introduced respondent to Dr. Everett D. Abney, employed by petitioner as superintendent of the area in which Primary C is located. Respondent explained her position to the area superintendent, who told her he would look into the matter, but that she should continue reporting to Primary C in the interim. The following day, a Thursday, respondent appeared for work at Primary C. While she was teaching her first class, Dr. Williams walked into the classroom and told her to cancel her classes for the day so that she could write lesson plans. On October 10, 1978, the following Tuesday, Dr. Williams interrupted respondent's first class and asked her to come talk to him about lesson plans. He told respondent be wanted very little singing; that the children should instead be taught how to read notes and to appreciate the works of the masters. Respondent undertook to implement these instructions by playing Bach for her pupils and by playing tones which she asked the children to characterize as short or long. On Thursday, October 12, 1978, Dr. Williams interrupted respondent's classes on three separate occasions, once to tell her he did not like the song she was singing, another time to direct her to use different songs for different classes. The next Tuesday, October 17, 1978, respondent had stomach pains, diarrhea and spastic colitis; and she was throwing up. She telephoned Primary C to say she was not coming in and also called Dr. Abney's office. On Tuesday, October 24, 1978, and again on Thursday, October 26, 1978, respondent was ill, and telephoned Primary C to report that she was not coming in. On October 26, 1978, after she had called in sick, Dr. Williams called respondent and told her not to come back to Primary C. On November 2, 1978, respondent conferred with Eldridge Williams, an administrator in petitioner's employ, about her work situation. She did not meet her classes that day. At the conclusion of their conversation, Eldridge Williams told her he would be in touch with her. Since he had not communicated with her by November 9, 1978, respondent telephoned him. She understood him to tell her not to report to Primary C, so she began putting in extra time at Nathan Young. Respondent is not the only teacher who found working under Charlie Williams, the principal at Primary C, difficult. Ms. Jessie Sandilands, an elementary school teacher for 22 years, sought and obtained a transfer from Primary C, after repeated confrontations with Charlie Williams. Ms. Elizabeth Wallace, an elementary school teacher, found working under Charlie Williams' principalship "unbearable" and obtained a transfer to another school on December 12, 1978. During the fall of 1978, the policy at Primary C concerning teachers' absences on account of illness or for other unforeseen reasons required the teacher to telephone a secretary at the school to report the illness or other cause for the impending absence. Every time respondent was absent from Primary C before November 2, 1978, she complied with this policy by telephoning either the night before or early on the day of the absence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reinstate respondent and pay her the wages she would have earned if she had not been suspended. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 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: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building Suite 300-E 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower 21 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether the Seminole County School Board is entitled to dismiss Respondent for just cause for misconduct in office and/or gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner, the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. Paul J. Hagerty is the Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, and the executive officer of the school board. Respondent, Robert Brinkman, is employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as both a teacher at Sterling Park Elementary School and a custodian at another school in Seminole County and has a professional services contract for instructional personnel with the School Board of Seminole County. Respondent is 57 years old and has taught school for 23 years. No evidence was presented regarding his status as a custodian other than he was a custodian at the time he received his letter of suspension and that he was asked to "turn in his keys." He is not currently performing custodial services. On Wednesday, December 13, 2000, Respondent requested of his supervisor, Principal Deborah Wright, that he be given his paycheck on the following day, Thursday, December 14. The regular payday was Friday, December 15. Respondent advised Principal Wright that he had planned to go on vacation on the 15th and needed his paycheck a day early. Principal Wright refused to agree to give Respondent his paycheck early, advising him that no one else would be given the checks early and further advising him that he would have to reschedule his vacation. Respondent returned to the office he shared with Dawn Towle and, as characterized by both Respondent and Miss Towle, "he just lost it" and said "that black bitch won't give me my check." There is no evidence that this statement was overheard by any students; none were present. Whether the statement was directed to Miss Towle or not, she heard the statement and she responded, "excuse me?", to which Respondent replied "that black lady won't give me my check early." Miss Towle immediately reported the statement to Principal Wright. Principal Wright appropriately interpreted Respondent's statement as a racial remark made about her; the racial remark made her angry. Miss Towle suggests that on four occasions over a two school-year period, while she and Respondent shared their 10-square-foot office, she heard Respondent utter remarks that she considered "similar (racial) comments." The importance of these purported racial comments is discounted by the fact that they occurred in private conversations, some were not epithets or racial slurs, the only one concerning Principal Wright may not have been intended to be heard by anyone (Respondent "mumbled under his breath") and that Respondent denied having made any racial remarks other than the remark on December 13, 2000. Principal Wright called Respondent to her office, and in the presence of a witness, the assistant principal, told Respondent that "if you ever refer to me by any name other than Mrs. Wright, I will walk you out of the school on your toes." Under the circumstances, while the undersigned can only imagine the true import of the statement, it seems perfectly appropriate. Respondent immediately attempted to apologize; Principal Wright directed him to leave her office. He returned later that morning and again attempted to apologize and was again rebuffed. Principal Wright did not accept his apology because she did not believe his apology was genuine. Principal Wright acknowledged animosity toward Respondent based on previous instances with children; she was not aware of any prior racial remarks made by Respondent. Respondent mailed Principal Wright an apology one week after the incident indicating that "he was upset" and that his statement was "inappropriate and did not indicate how I feel about you." Principal Wright testified that Respondent had done nothing that was "racially harassing to her in the past," that his statement did not intimidate her or create a "hostile work environment," and that the statement (dealing with it) took time that she could have devoted to other job responsibilities. Respondent's statement, while clearly racially and sexually offensive, was isolated and not so severe as to create a hostile or abusive work environment. Principal Wright immediately reported the statement to John Reichert, who is charged by the School Board with the responsibility of investigating complaints of misconduct. Mr. Reichert arrived at Sterling Park Elementary School at 12:30 p.m., on the day of the incident. After interviewing Miss Towle and Principal Wright, he interviewed Respondent. Respondent acknowledged making the statement, said it was "a stupid thing to say" but that he was upset because he couldn't get his check, and that "he just lost it." The same day or the next, Respondent was suspended with pay which matured into a suspension without pay, effective January 17, 2001. The slur first heard or overheard by Miss Towle was indirectly published by Principal Wright to the assistant principal who became a witness to Principal Wright's admonishment of Respondent. While the assistant principal is not specifically aware of the text of Respondent's statement, she was made aware that Respondent had made a racial statement about Principal Wright. To the degree this remark has been further published, it is a result of appropriate investigative and administrative action taken by the School Board. There is no evidence that there is a general awareness, in the school system or the community, of Respondent's statement. Other than the testimony of Miss Towle, there is no suggestion that the Respondent made other sexual/racial statements. He has no record of sexual/racial misconduct. Respondent maintains that his remark was not racially motivated, that he was just very upset. He has enjoyed working for Principal Wright for five years. At the final hearing, Respondent again acknowledged that what he said was very inappropriate and that he is very sorry for what he said. There is no evidence that Respondent's remark actually impaired his effectiveness in the school system--which is a necessary factual component of the offense of misconduct in office. The only evidence received on the issue of impairment of Respondent's effectiveness in the school system is John Reichert's testimony that he had no knowledge that Respondent's effectiveness would be impaired anywhere beyond Sterling Park Elementary School.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Seminole County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and returning him to full duty, effective January 17, 2001, with all back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFFREY B. CLARK 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 20th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Sandra J. Pomerantz, Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment by the Pinellas County School Board as a painter in the School Board’s Maintenance Department for any or all of the following: excessive absenteeism, failure to report absences according to established procedures, failure to provide required medical documentation for absences, tardiness, insubordination, driving under the influence of alcohol and criminal conviction of driving while intoxicated?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, is the authority that operates, controls and supervises all free public schools in the Pinellas County School District. Dwayne Goodrow has been employed as a painter in the Maintenance Department for the Pinellas County School Board since April 18, 1989. His work has always been satisfactory and sometimes better than satisfactory. Over the years of his employment, however, he has had chronic and serious attendance problems. Absenteeism, Attendance and Other Performance Factors On August 2, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." The memorandum stated that since the beginning of the school year, Mr. Goodrow had been absent an excessive number of times, including 17 hours of leave without pay. It informed Mr. Goodrow that, "[t]his absenteeism is unacceptable and you must make an immediate and permanent correction of this behavior." (Petitioner's Ex. No. 1) It further advised him that the memorandum would be placed in his file as a record that he had been counseled about the matter and that he fully understood that any reoccurrence of excessive absenteeism would result in a letter of reprimand. The memorandum warns: In the event you receive a letter of reprimand and the excessive absenteeism continues, you will become subject to more severe disciplinary action, which could include suspension or dismissal. Id. The memorandum is signed first by Mr. Goodrow and then by school board personnel: Mr. Goodrow's foreman and general foreman as well as the Superintendent of the School District. On October 5, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for excessive absenteeism. The letter informs Mr. Goodrow of his General Foreman's belief that he has not realized the seriousness of his problem with absenteeism because in the interim since the August 2 memorandum he had been absent 29 and ½ additional hours. The letter warns, "if your absenteeism continues, it will be cause to recommend you for suspension or dismissal." Petitioner's Ex. No.2. It concludes, "Your signature below will acknowledge that you have received and understand this letter of reprimand." Id. Just as the August 2, 1990 memorandum, the letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow and school board personnel. On a Supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal signed by Mr. Goodrow January 18, 1991, he received a rating of unsatisfactory in the area of attendance and "needs improvement" in the area of punctuality. The remarks section of the appraisal states with regard to attendance, "[h]as received letters warning him of this, must be corrected." Petitioner's Ex. No. 17. The appraisal also states, "Dwayne has good painting abilities and knowledge, can be trusted to complete any job given him." Id. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." With the exception of stating that he had taken 15 hours of leave without pay, the memorandum is identical to the August 2, 1990 memorandum. On a supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal dated February 14, 1992, Mr. Goodrow was again rated unsatisfactory under the performance factor of attendance. The remarks section reflects that he received counseling on December 19, 1991, for frequent tardiness but also that "[j]ob knowledge is adequate," "[c]ompletes assigned work on time," "[h]as the ability to be a self-starter," and "[c]an be a good team worker." Petitioner's Ex. No. 16. On September 15, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received an Attendance Deficiency Notification Letter. The letter states "[y]ou are required to bring in doctor's documentation of your illness on all further sick leave absence requests." Petitioner's Ex. No. 4. Although there is a place on the letter for Mr. Goodrow's signature and a notation that signature by the employee does not imply agreement with statements in the letter, the letter reflects that Mr. Goodrow refused to sign it. On October 3, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received a Record of Counseling. It noted deficiencies in his performance in that, INSUBORDINATION - You were told to furnish doctors excuses for any sick leave taken as per letter dated 9/15/94. On 9/26/94 you used 2 hours sick leave and failed to provide Doctor's excuse upon request of your Foreman. Petitioner's Ex. No. 5. To bring his performance to the satisfactory level, Mr. Goodrow was advised he would have to supply a doctor's documentation of illness whenever he took sick leave in the future. On February 17, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was rated as "Needing Improvement," in the area of attendance on his performance appraisal by his supervisor. The remarks section of the appraisal reflects that he was counseled for not following leave policy but also that "Dwayne has shown a more positive attitude recently, he has the potential to progress." Petitioner's Ex. No. 15. Furthermore, Mr. Goodrow was rated "better than satisfactory, in the area of "job knowledge." Consistent with this rating, in the remarks section, the following appears, "Dwayne exhibits his job knowledge by identifying problems and solving them . . . ." Id. The potential for progress noted in February did not last long. On March 24, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for insubordination for failing to provide a doctor's excuse for sick leave absences contrary to previous instructions. The letter warned that failure to provide doctor's excuses in the future to justify sick leave will result in "further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." Petitioner's Ex. No. 6. Over the next 6 months, Mr. Goodrow began again to show progress. By early September, 1995, his attendance had "improved considerably," Petitioner's Ex. No. 7, and the requirement for a doctor's excuse for every sick leave absence was lifted. The procedure for reporting absences in the School Board's Maintenance Department is for employees to call in at least one-half hour prior to their normal starting time. There is an answering machine upon which a message can be recorded when there is no person available to take the call. Shortly after the lifting of the requirement for a doctor's excuse to justify sick leave, Mr. Goodrow, on Wednesday, September 13, 1995, was absent from work. He did not call in consistent with the procedure for reporting absences. He was absent again two days later. In addition to the failure to call in on September 13, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was absent without calling in on three other days in the fall of 1995: October 18 and 26, and November 9. Each time he failed to call in, Mr. Goodrow was verbally warned by Trades Foreman Al Myers of the requirement for calling in and was given a review of proper procedure. On December 14, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow proper procedure with regard to the four absences in the fall of 1995. The letter was the result of an agreement with Mr. Goodrow that the letter was the appropriate response by the maintenance department for the absences and failure to follow procedure. A stipulation was added, however, to the agreement: "[A]nother attendance incident within one year will result in recommendation for 'Time off without pay' or possible 'Dismissal'.". Petitioner's Ex. No. 7. The letter concludes, "Also, as of this date you are again required to provide medical proof of your [inability to attend work] . . . and you are required to notify your supervisor prior to the start of work shift you are going to be absent." Id. The letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow. On February 26, 1996, Mr. Goodrow and the School Board entered a Stipulation Agreement. The agreement reviewed Mr. Goodrow's performance appraisals for unsatisfactory attendance, and insubordination for taking sick leave without doctor's excuses. Furthermore, it stated that Mr. Goodrow: On December 15, 1995, . . . left work early without proper notification or required medical documentation. On January 3, 1996, Mr. Goodrow failed to report his absence according to established procedures, and on January 17, 1996, he failed to report his absence according to established procedures and requested 3.5 hours of sick leave without providing required medical documentation. Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. As an expression of regret and to affirm his commitment to notify his supervisor in the future regarding absences, Mr. Goodrow agreed to a three day suspension without pay effective March 19, 20 and 21, 1996. The stipulation also states that Mr. Goodrow, once again, understands that further problems could result in more serious disciplinary action, including dismissal. On April 16, 1996, Mr. Goodrow received a performance review finding him to have continued to demonstrate unsatisfactory attendance and judgment in that on March 6, 1996, he was late 3 hours with no explanation, on March 28, 1996, he was late one-half hour with no explanation, on April 3, 1996 he took eight hours sick leave without doctor's justification, on April 9, 1996, he was arrested and charged with DUI, and on April 11, 1996, he took eight hours sick leave without a doctor's justification. Driving While Intoxicated The job description for a painter employed with the Pinellas County School Board includes the requirement that the employee possess a valid State of Florida Class B commercial driver's license ("CDL"), to include "air brake" qualifications, and any other license as may be required by law. On March 30, 1996, while driving a motor vehicle off- duty, Mr. Goodrow was stopped by a law enforcement officer for failing to maintain his vehicle in a single lane of traffic. Deputy Howard Skaggs, a member of the Sheriff Department's DUI unit, was summoned to the scene to conduct filed sobriety tests to determine whether Mr. Goodrow was driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Skaggs smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the breath of Mr. Goodrow, who, in turn, admitted that he had consumed at least six beers at two different taverns. While at the roadside, three field sobriety tests were performed by Deputy Skaggs, all of which Mr. Goodrow failed. Deputy Skaggs concluded that Mr. Goodrow was without doubt impaired. At the jail, Mr. Goodrow was asked to submit to a breathalyzer. He refused with the statement that he had had too much to drink and the test would only incriminate him. Mr. Goodrow was arrested. On September 17, 1996, Mr. Goodrow entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, required to enroll in DUI school, fined $1000.00, and his driver's license was revoked for one year. Without a driver's license and a CDL, Mr. Goodrow no longer meets the job description of a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. Notification of Dismissal On June 19, 1996, Mr. Goodrow was notified that Superintendent Hinesley would recommend to the School Board that he be dismissed due to excessive absenteeism and insubordination. The DUI conviction, not having yet occurred, was not, of course, a factor in the superintendent's decision. Comparison with Other Employees Brett Paul, a painter in the Maintenance Department like Mr. Goodrow, also had attendance problems very similar to Mr. Goodrow's. He was suspended for three days without pay on the very same dates as Mr. Goodrow. Since the March suspension, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, Mr. Paul's attendance has improved with the exception on an isolated instance in which his absence was due to a "major life event," the purchase of a house. He has not been convicted of DUI. Tom Appold was arrested for DUI during a time that he was employed as a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. After his conviction for DUI, he requested that he be allowed to transfer to another department, presumably because he could no longer meet the job description requirement that he hold a CDL. The request was honored and he is now employed by the School Board in another section of the Maintenance Department for which a CDL is not required. Mr. Appold, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, has never been reprimanded or suspended for attendance problems. His attendance has always been found by the School Board's Maintenance Department to be within acceptable limits. Alcoholism and a Change of Heart Mr. Goodrow is an alcoholic. His excessive absenteeism, refusal to follow proper procedures with regard to work absences, insubordination, driving while intoxicated, arrest and conviction for DUI, and virtually every other work problem he had experienced over his seven years of employment with the School Board's maintenance department stems from alcoholism. For example, many of the days he missed at work were days following dart tournaments the night before at local establishments that served alcohol. Until the aftermath of his DUI conviction, Mr. Goodrow was ashamed and embarrassed to admit he suffers alcoholism. Today, with the assistance of professional counseling required as condition of probation for the crime of which he has been convicted, Mr. Goodrow is able to admit and freely did so at hearing that he is an alcoholic. The ability to make this admission is a major step forward for Mr. Goodrow. It is unfortunate that Mr. Goodrow's ability to face up to his problem has come so late. Had he admitted the condition when he was encountering problems with attendance at work, there were a number of options available to him and the School Board short of poor performance appraisals, letters of reprimand and suspension. As Dr. Martha O'Howell , Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards testified, We would have talked to him about the extent of that drinking problem. We would have referred him to . . . Cigna, the health provider. At that time, there was no formalized EAP [Employee Assistance Program] in place that the employee could go directly to, but there was . . . substance abuse counselling (sic) through Cigna that was available. We would have referred him or put him in contact with our risk management department. We would have encouraged him to take a leave of absence while he was seeking treatment, (Tr. 78). depending on the nature of the treatment, the severity, the length and so forth. We would have worked with him to provide a medical leave of absence if that had become necessary. If Mr. Goodrow's suspension were lifted and his employment was reinstated, the School Board's Employee Assistance Program would be available now to help him cope with his alcoholism. School Board personnel are not willing to make such a recommendation, however, in light of all that has occurred in Mr. Goodrow's case. A supervisor in the Maintenance Department expressed concern over the precedent that would be set if Mr. Goodrow were allowed to return to work, particularly in the minds of employees who might think that conduct like Mr. Goodrow's resulted in no meaningful consequences on the part of the School Board. Contrary to the concern of the Maintenance Department, the action taken to date, a suspension without pay that has been in effect now for more than eight months, has resulted in very definite consequences to Mr. Goodrow. In the main, he has been unemployed. He has made reasonable efforts to gain employment. But the loss of his driver's license has held him back. At the time of hearing, what little money he had been able to earn from the time of his suspension was certainly far below what he would have earned had he not been suspended from the employment he had held for more than seven years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the suspension of Dwayne Goodrow be sustained by the Pinellas County School Board but that he be reinstated without back pay if adequate conditions for his return to work can be agreed-to by the parties. If conditions of reinstatement cannot be agreed-to, Mr. Goodrow should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Elihu H. Berman, Esquire Berman & Hobgood, P.A. 1525 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 34624
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s employment should be suspended and terminated for the reasons set forth in the Amended Petition for Involuntary Resignation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began her employment with Petitioner as a substitute teacher in November of 1997, and was later hired as a regular teacher in January of 2000. Respondent held a temporary teaching certificate which expired after the time period at issue in this case. Respondent was first assigned to teach at Santaluces High School and was later assigned to Bear Lakes Middle School, where she taught geography. On April 12, 2002, Respondent was injured in the line of duty while attempting to assist another teacher control unruly students. In that incident Respondent fell and injured both her back and her knee. Respondent was authorized by Petitioner’s workers’ compensation administrators to treat with both Dr. Wexler and Dr. Lichtblau for her injuries.1 Following the accident on April 12, 2002, Respondent continued to work at Bear Lakes Middle School until on or about November 11, 2002, when she was placed on a light duty assignment at another location. Respondent had been placed on light duty by Dr. Wexler because he felt it was medically necessary. Thereafter, Respondent was given several light-duty assignments to accommodate her physician-imposed work restrictions, including assignments to Conniston Middle School, Risk Management, JFK Middle School, Gold Coast Community, and the District’s substitute office. Respondent was placed on light-duty assignments by the Palm Beach County School Board (School Board) for a total of more than ten months. The light-duty assignments provided by the School Board are temporary assignments that are made available in lieu of workers’ compensation payments to employees who are able to perform light duty. They are not offered for an indefinite period of time, nor are they offered as a permanent employment option. Following some confused communications about Respondent’s certification status and some further confused communications as to whether Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement and could return to a seven-and-a-half hour per day classroom teacher position, Respondent was offered a job teaching full-time (seven-and-a-half hours per day) at Jeaga Middle School. Respondent was supposed to begin teaching at Jeaga Middle School in September of 2003. On September 10, 2003, Dr. Wexler, one of Respondent’s treating physicians wrote that he agreed with another physician’s assessment that Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement and could work eight hours per day with certain restrictions that could be accommodated in a classroom teaching setting. Later that month, Dr. Wexler explained that there had been some confusion on September 10, 2003, and that he was of the view that Respondent had not yet reached maximum medical improvement and that Respondent’s work hours should be restricted to four hours per day. Respondent declined the offer of the full-time teaching position at Jeaga Middle School and requested that the School Board offer further light-duty work assignments of no more than four hours per day. The School Board promptly informed Respondent that she would not be offered any further light-duty assignments and that if she was not going to accept the full- time position at Jeaga Middle School, she should apply for leave without pay in order to avoid being terminated by the School Board. At an earlier time following her April 12, 2002, injury, Respondent was on leave without pay for a period of time. During that period she received workers’ compensation benefits in lieu of wages or salary. During that period of time Respondent was dissatisfied with the workers’ compensation benefits she received. Because of that prior negative experience, Respondent did not want to again request leave without pay, which would require her to rely on workers’ compensation benefits until she reached maximum medical improvement. Respondent did not accept the full-time position at Jeaga Middle School and did not apply for leave without pay. Respondent did not apply for any other regular employment opportunities with the School Board. Respondent did continue to request assignment to a light-duty position for four hours per day. The School Board advised Respondent on several occasions that she would not be assigned to any further light-duty positions and that it would be in her own best interest to apply for leave without pay to avoid termination from the School Board. As a teacher employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the CTA (CTA Contract). The subject of unpaid leaves is addressed at page 55 of the CTA Contract, which includes the following language: SECTION C - UNPAID LEAVES: GENERAL PROVISIONS All absences of employees from duty shall be covered by leave applications which are duly authorized, a copy of which shall be provided employees upon request. Except for short-term leaves of absence, and intermittent political leave, unpaid leaves shall be timed such that the employee returns at the beginning of a new grading period. Except for extenuating circumstances, Sick Leave without Pay for Personal Illness or Illness/death of a Family Member, for more than ten (10) days, also shall be timed so that the employee returns at the beginning of a grading period. An employee taking an approved unpaid leave shall retain the same contractual and salary credit status as he/she had upon taking such leave and shall be returned to the same school, and within certification, to the same assignment he/she held prior to taking the leave, if said leave is for a duration of twelve (12) months or less. However, an employee while on an unpaid leave shall be subject to the Excessing Procedure and the Lay-Off/Call-Back Procedure of this Agreement the same as if they were not on leave. If these procedures become operative and affect the employee on leave, he/she may not be returned to the same position he/she held prior to taking leave. Likewise, employees while on an unpaid leave maintain their rights to apply for transfers and/or reassignments as provided by this Agreement. * * * SECTION D - UNPAID LEAVES: SPECIFIC PROVISIONS Short Term Leave of Absence - Any employee desiring short term leave of absence shall make written application for such leave to the Principal or immediate supervisor. Except in emergency situation, such applications shall be approved in advance. Leave for emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance, if prompt report is made to the proper authority. The first five (5) requested days of short term leave, whether covered by one (1) or more than one (1) request, will be approved. Requests for short term leave thereafter, regardless of length, will be granted or denied by the District in its discretion. Applications for more than five (5) working days will require that a reason be given and shall be subject to approval by the Superintendent. Employees shall not be gainfully employed during normal working hours while on such leave. Long Term Leave of Absence - A long term leave of absence is permission granted by the Board, at the District’s discretion, for an employee to be absent from his/her duties for specified periods of time with the right of returning to duty on expiration of the leave. Leave shall be officially granted in advance by the District and shall be used for the purpose set forth in the leave application. Such long-term unpaid leave, when granted, will be for the remainder of the school year, unless otherwise approved with the initial leave request. In addition, up to one (1) additional year of leave shall be granted upon receipt of a written request from the employee, unless the employee has not been reappointed in keeping with other provisions of the Agreement for the next school year. Such extension of long-term leave shall be timed such that the employee returns at the beginning of a new grading period. Once an employee has exhausted the leave privileges under this subsection (Long-term Leaves), the employee shall be required to return to duty for a full year before being eligible for another long-term unpaid leave. As a School Board employee, Respondent is subject to applicable School Board rules and regulations, including School Board Policy 3.80 and School Board Directive 3.27. School Board Policy 3.80 addresses unpaid leaves when an employee’s sickness has extended beyond all compensable leave. School Board Directive 3.27 addresses the general topic of separation from employment. Under the caption “Suspension/Termination” the directive provides: 3. The Principal/Department Head may recommend to the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations disciplinary action against an employee if the employee commits one or more of the following offenses, including but not limited to: * * * b. Willful absence from duty without leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes (now § 1012.67, Fla. Stat.). * * * e. Incompetent to perform regular work duties. Incompetency is defined as incapacity to perform due to lack of emotional stability or physical ability; or lack of adequate command of the designated area of work. Employees are also incompetent when they repeatedly fail to perform duties prescribed by law and by this district. [2] Respondent was personally advised on numerous occasions that if she did not apply for a leave of absence, she would be absent without approved leave and would be subject to termination. Respondent was absent without authorization.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the. Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee, Florida in 1968 and since March, 1971 has been evaluated by his supervisors as conditional or unsatisfactory in dependability. These low marks in dependability stem directly from his absenteeism rather than from his calibre of work when on duty. Petitioner is employed as a psychiatric aide. On October 31, 1972 Petitioner received his first written reprimand for excessive absenteeism. On March 22, 1973 a second written reprimand was received by Petitioner for excessive absenteeism. From August 1974 to May 1975 Petitioner was granted leave of absence to attend a vocational school. Upon his return to work at the hospital he was assigned to the 3:00 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. shift. In August 1975 Petitioner was assigned to night duty at his own request and over the objection of the night duty supervisor whose objections were based solely on Petitioner's prior record of absenteeism. Between the months of September 1975 to August 1976 Petitioner was absent a total of 64 1/2 days of the days he was required to be on duty. On July 13, 1976 Petitioner was given a third written reprimand for excessive absenteeism. On each of the occasions Petitioner was absent he would call in one or two hours prior to the time he was scheduled to report for duty to advise that he or a member of his family was sick. At this time of night it was often impossible for the hospital to get a replacement for him, and, as a result, the ward was short of attendants. Following the July 13, 1976 written reprimand Petitioner called in sick on July 25, July 31, and August 1, 1976. In approximately 95 percent of the cases Petitioner's absences occurred the day prior or subsequent to his scheduled off-duty days. During the six months period prior to his suspension from duty for three days without pay the ward to which Petitioner was assigned was a surgical ward where most patients required more intensive care than on non-surgical wards. While on duty Petitioner is an effective and capable employee and his efficiency reports so indicate. HRS Employee Handbook (Exhibit 1) provides penalties for various offenses. For the first offense of excessive absenteeism oral to written reprimand is recommended. For a second such offense penalty of written reprimand to three days suspension is recommended. For a third such offense three days suspension to dismissal is recommended. For a fourth such offense dismissal is recommended. Testifying in his own behalf Petitioner acknowledged excessive absenteeism and gave as a reason that he was subject to headaches, and, that when he didn't feel good he would stay home rather than come to work and have to listen to the complaints of his fellow workers. During the past year Petitioner has been employed by Gadsden County School Board as a bus driver. While so employed he missed only one day due to sickness.
The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Hernando County School Board (Board), the Petitioner, has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment, related to alleged excessive absences, during the 2007-2008 school year.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Board is charged with operating and administering the Hernando County School District. Through its principals and human resources personnel the Board is charged with operating and regulating all personnel matters, including the monitoring of attendance for all employees at each school operated by the Board. Mr. Charles Johnson was the Principal at Westside Elementary School (WES) for the 2007-2008 school year at issue in this case. He had been the principal at that school since 1988 and it was his duty, among other personnel matters, to monitor the attendance of his employees at the school. The Respondent was employed at WES during the 2007-2008 school year. She had been hired to work there for the first time that year. She had, however, been employed by the Board as a teacher since 1997. Prior to the school year in question, the Respondent had a very favorable record as a teacher for the Board. Soon after the Respondent came to work at WES for the 2007-2008 school year she began to exhibit a pattern of frequent absences. The principal, Mr. Johnson, became concerned with Respondent's absences in late September of 2007 because a parent-teacher conference was imminent and report cards or progress reports were due for the first nine-week grading period around that time. The principal maintained a record of the teachers' attendance, including the Respondent. He created a log documenting the Respondent's absences from August 2007 through January 2008. The Respondent was absent five days in August and present for ten days. She was present for ten days and absent for nine days in September. The Respondent was absent on both October 1 and 2, 2007, as well. The Respondent called the principal's secretary on October 2nd to advise that she had a doctor's appointment on the third and would return to work on the fourth. The Respondent did not return to work on October 4th, however. The principal thereupon sent the Respondent a letter advising her that her absences were excessive and she needed to report to work by October 10th. He gave her some lead time in getting back to work because he was unaware of the reasons why she was missing so much work. He also wanted to allow for any delays due to mailing time for his letter, which was mailed on October 4th. The Respondent called the principal and spoke with him on October 8th and advised him that she had been sick and had been "beaten-up." She assured him that she would return to work the next day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work the next day and also failed to come to work on October 10, 2007, as directed in the principal's letter. She did call the school office and leave a voice mail on the principal's phone that morning assuring him that she would be at work the next day, which was October 11th. The Respondent did not return to work on October 11th as promised. Because of her failure to return to work, the principal sent a letter to her dated October 15, 2007, advising her that he had scheduled a "pre-disciplinary hearing" for October 19, 2007, which she should attend. The purpose of that hearing was to give her an opportunity to explain her "excessive absenteeism." The Respondent thereupon was absent from work every day during the week of October 15th, and then failed to attend the scheduled hearing or meeting on October 19th. Moreover, she did not call or otherwise communicate with the principal that week to explain her absences or why she had missed the meeting. Thereafter, the Principal sent the Respondent a letter dated October 23, 2007, again scheduling a pre-disciplinary hearing. The hearing was scheduled for October 30th. The letter was both mailed and personally delivered to the Respondent. Upon receipt of the hand-delivered copy of the letter, the Respondent phoned the principal and spoke to him. According to Mr. Johnson, the Principal, the Respondent told him in this conversation that she had not opened his previous letters, but she assured him she would be at work the following day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work on the following day, which was October 25, 2007, nor did she attend the pre-disciplinary hearing on October 30th, which Mr. Johnson had scheduled. Mr. Johnson, therefore, sent a letter to the Respondent on October 31st advising her that he was recommending to the Superintendent that she be suspended with pay. He sent a letter to the School District office of Labor Relations and Professional Standards on the same day referring the matter to that office, along with copies of all the relevant documents he had which evidenced what be believed were excessive absences. Because of her 10 days or more of consecutive absences, under Board policy, the Respondent was administratively placed on unpaid leave of absence, instead of being suspended with pay as recommended by her principal. The unpaid leave of absence had an effective date of October 15, 2007. Such a leave of absence is designed to enable a principal to replace a teacher in the situation of the Respondent with a permanent certified teacher, to assure continuity of effective instruction. The Respondent was sent instructions regarding her leave of absence by mail on October 15, 2007, from the Human Resources Department of the District. She was thus informed that she could elect to go on extended personal leave or on family medical leave. No information was received from the Respondent in response to this communication, however. The Respondent maintains that she provided a document concerning family medical leave. That form, however, was merely a medical certification statement and not an actual application or request for family medical leave. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Respondent was not qualified for family medical leave, even had a proper application been submitted, because she had not worked a sufficient number of hours in the preceding school year to establish her entitlement to family medical leave under the relevant rules and policies. An employee conference was held with the Respondent on November 2, 2007. The Respondent, the principal, and Ms. Barbara Kidder, who is the Director of Labor Relations and Professional Standards for the School District, were in attendance at the meeting. The Respondent assured them at the meeting that she would return to work the following Monday, November 5th and thereafter maintain satisfactory attendance. She also agreed to seek assistance through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and agreed to advise the school when she had appointments with that program. It was not unusual for Mr. Johnson to have continued the disciplinary process and communication with the Respondent about her absenteeism throughout the month of October, even though she was on a leave of absence. She had been placed on that leave of absence by the District so that it could hire a replacement teacher. It was not a leave she had voluntarily requested. Moreover, even without considering the days of absence while she was on her administrative leave of absence, the principal had a basis for pursuing disciplinary action for the absences she had previously incurred. November 5, 2007, was approved by the District as the Respondent's "early return date" from that leave of absence, which had started on October 15th. Indeed, the Respondent came to work on Monday, November 5th. She was, however, absent for the rest of that week. She did not contact either the principal or his secretary concerning those absences. She called the automated system for assigning substitute teachers (SEMS), which does not constitute nor grant any excuse for an absence. It is merely a means of scheduling or assigning substitute teachers. School did not meet on November 12th, a Monday. On Tuesday, November 13th the Respondent called and left a voice mail message for the principal advising that she had been to the doctor on the Friday before for strep throat and a respiratory infection. She assured him that she would be back the following day November 14, 2007. The Respondent, however, did not report to work on November 14th, but instead called and spoke with the principal around 10:00 a.m., advising him that she just left the doctor's office. She advised him that she had a note indicating she would be clear to report to work on the following Monday. The Principal reminded her that the next week was Thanksgiving week and no school met that week. The Respondent then agreed to come to work on Monday, November 26th and advised that she would have the doctor's note with her at that time. The Respondent failed to report to work on November 26th, as she had promised and did not contact the Principal or his secretary concerning that absence. She also missed work November 27th through the 30th, and did not call the principal or his secretary to explain those absences. The principal accordingly sent her another letter on November 29th advising her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was again scheduled for December 4th to discuss her absences. She did not attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on December 4th nor did she report to work that entire week. She failed to contact the principal or his secretary and explain her absences from work that week and her absence from the scheduled meeting. On December 5, 2007, the principal sent another letter to the Respondent advising her that he was referring her case or situation to the labor relations office. On that same date he sent a memorandum to the director of the labor relations office enclosing all the relevant documentation he had regarding the absences. That office then sent the Respondent a letter on December 5th which advised her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was scheduled for December 12th. The pre-disciplinary meeting was held on December 12th and the Respondent and Ms. Kidder were in attendance. Ms. Kidder gave the Respondent information on the EAP and advised her that she would be reviewing the Respondent's case with the Human Resources Office and the Petitioner's attorney. On December 14th the Respondent met with Ms. Kidder and the principal. The Respondent on this occasion was given a "letter of direction," advising her that she would be assigned a "mentor" and advising her of procedures for absences. The procedures she was directed to follow for absences included a stipulation that a doctor's note would be required for all future absences. The letter of direction given to the Respondent on December 14th contained the following requirements or procedures for the Respondent to follow with regard to her work and her absences: She was be assigned a "mentor" teacher to assist her with transitioning back to work. She was to report to administration each day before reporting to her classroom. She was to meet weekly with administration to review her attendance and her progress. She was expected to be in attendance each day starting Monday, December 17, 2007, and was to follow the Principal's specific directions regarding the process for obtaining approval for sick leave. She was to contact the principal if she had any questions concerning working hours, timesheets, absences, tardiness, sickness at work, leaving the building or related employee issues. She was being placed on probationary status for one year and any future violations of Petitioner's policies or procedures or any administrative directives would constitute "just cause" for disciplinary action up to and including termination. She was expected to contact EAP and attend counseling sessions as recommended by the staff. She was then to document the completed counseling sessions to her principal. During the December 14, 2007, meeting, the Respondent agreed to return to work as directed. She gave no indication that she would be unable to return to work or perform her duties or that there would be any restrictions on her ability to return to work. The Respondent provided no doctor's notes explaining illnesses or absences during either the December 14th meeting or the November 2nd meeting with the Principal. In fact, the Respondent did not return to work the following Monday, December 17th. She also missed the rest of that week and did not contact administration directly about her absences as she had been directed to do on December 14th and as the "letter of instruction" had directed her to do. The Respondent produced phone records at the hearing and testified that certain calls represented conversations with either the Principal or his secretary. This was in an effort to show that she had properly explained her absences. She did not, however, provide corroborating testimony as to which of the calls on the records were specific to a person as opposed to simply leaving a voice mail for that number or receiving no answer at all. In any event, Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent a letter on December 20th reminding her that it was her responsibility to provide a doctor's note in explanation of her absences and that she was supposed to return to work on December 17, 2007. The letter reminded the Respondent that her attendance was critical. The last week of December 2007 and the first week of January 2008, constituted the District's school Christmas Break. The first day of school following Christmas Break was Monday, January 7, 2008. The Respondent did not return to work that day, even though she later presented notes from Doctors Khalil and Alshaar indicating that she was able to work that day. The Respondent did report for work on January 8th, but then was absent for January 9th and 10th. She reported for work on January 11th, but later produced a note from Dr. Alshaar indicating that she should be excused for that day. Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent another letter on January 25, 2008, advising her that a "pre-determination hearing" had been scheduled for February 1, 2008, to again review her absences since January 7, 2008. The Respondent acknowledges that she received the correspondence from the Petitioner referenced above. She was also aware of the Petitioner's polices and procedures on attendance and leaves of absence. She signed a receipt indicating that she had received the Staff Handbook which outlines specific policies and references the School Board Policy Manual in general. Additionally, the Respondent acknowledged to the Principal that "time and attendance" were reviewed during her "new employee orientation" at the school. Teacher absences have a negative impact on the classroom, the students and the school. The principal had to ask other teachers to cover the Respondent's classroom and to use substitutes. A teacher's credibility and the trust of students is impaired when the teacher is constantly absent or alternately appearing or being absent from the classroom on a frequent basis. Mr. Johnson established that the Respondent had the worst attendance record he had experienced with a teacher in his 20 or so years as a principal. Her absences for the 2007-2008 school year far exceeded that of any other teacher at the school. The Collective Bargaining Agreement covering teachers in Hernando County, including the Respondent, provides that sick leave is allowable without loss of pay as provided for by Florida Law and that personal leave should be approved by work site administrators, except in cases of substantial emergency. The Hernando County Staff Handbook is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 24. It provides the details of the Board's policies and procedures on absences, leaves of absence, sick leave and leaves made necessary by sudden emergencies, etc. The general information concerning leaves of absence, the policies and procedures concerning family medical leave, notification of absence, absence without leave, sick leave, depicted in that exhibit are incorporated in these Findings of Fact by reference. Those policies and procedures include the requirement that where there is any doubt as to the validity of a sick leave claim, the superintendent may require the filing of a written certification of illness from a licensed physician or other supporting evidence if personal illness is not involved. It then provides the consequences of false claims for sick leave, proceeding to list cancellation of a teacher's contract or for action seeking revocation of a teaching contract. It also includes a provision that an application for sick leave due to extended illness shall have attached to it a statement from a practicing physician certifying that such leave is essential and indicating the probable duration of the illness and the needed leave. There is no question, given the pattern of extensive absences, and given the Respondent's lack of communication with the principal, or even the principal's secretary, concerning the reason for her absences or the legitimacy of any illness, that the Principal could have doubts as to the validity of any sick leave or illness claims. He was thus proceeding within the appropriate policies contained in the Manual and Handbook in requiring physician certification or proof concerning illness or absences, which mostly was not provided by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Hernando County Florida terminating the Respondent from her position as a teacher with that School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Jennifer M. Gallagher 1223 Sanger Avenue Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Wayne S. Alexander, Ed.D. Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
