Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the Dade County School District. Teachers assigned to the various schools are recommended to the Superintendent for employment or contract renewal by their respective principals. The Superintendent, in turn, presents a recommendation regarding the teacher's employment to the Board. At all times material to the disputed facts of this case, Respondent was a teacher employed by the Board and assigned to a public school within the district. Teachers employed by the Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system records deficiencies which may have been observed during the evaluation review and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. At all times material to this case, the TADS method was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent began employment with the Dade County public schools in September, 1961, and taught until February 13, 1963. She returned to teaching in March, 1982, and was employed pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was assigned to a second grade class at Ojus Elementary School (Ojus). Jeanne Friedman was the principal at Ojus and was primarily responsible for Respondent's TADS evaluation. At the conclusion of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was given an annual evaluation. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in four of the seven areas of evaluation. Specifically, Respondent was found to be in need of remediation in the following categories: knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relations. A prescription was devised to assist Respondent improve in the areas deemed to be deficient, and she was informed that should she not improve in the areas noted by the end of the next year, that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1988-89 school year. The evaluation for the 1986-87 school year was predicated on observations which had been conducted on December 5, 1986, January 22, 1987, and March 2, 1987. On December 5, 1986, Jeanne Friedman conducted a TADS evaluation of the Respondent. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on December 11, 1986, to review the evaluation and to assist in the implementation of the prescription. On December 18, 1986, a conference for the record was held to address the Respondent's performance and her future employment status. At this meeting, Respondent was reminded of the suggestions given to correct the deficiencies noted in the evaluation conducted December 5, 1986. Those deficiencies were related to Respondent's preparation and planning. On January 22, 1987, Respondent was evaluated in follow-up to the December review. This observation was discussed with the Respondent on January 23, 1987. Respondent's prescription for the deficiencies noted in this evaluation required corrections to be implemented by February 2, 1987. The deficiencies were in the area of preparation and planning. On March 2, 1987, Respondent was evaluated by Jeanne Friedman and Emilio Fox. The evaluations were performed during the same class period, language arts, but the evaluators did not communicate with one another nor compare their notes regarding Respondent's performance. Both evaluators found the Respondent to be deficient in three of the areas of evaluation: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to follow the lesson plan book for the entire class time, had failed to plan the activity which was conducted, wrote several erroneous items on the class board, and did not explain the nature of the lesson to the class. Several of Respondent's errors were brought to her attention by the students (second graders). Margaret Roderick and Leeomia Kelly evaluated Respondent on April 27, 1987. These TADS assessments found Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On May 29, 1987, a conference for the record was held regarding Respondent's poor performance year. At that time, Respondent was advised that if she failed to remediate the areas noted to be deficient by the end of the 1987-88 school year, she would not be recommended for continued employment. At her request, Respondent was assigned to a kindergarten class at Ojus for the 1987-88 school year. Approximately 30 students were initially enrolled in Respondent's section. A second kindergarten section was taught by Ms. Kramer. A TADS evaluation conducted by Leeomia Kelly on September 17, 1987, found Respondent to be acceptable in all categories reviewed. After this evaluation, several parents wrote to Ms. Friedman asking that their children be moved from Respondent's class to Ms. Kramer's section. The number of students enrolled in Respondent's class dropped to approximately 23. On October 22, 1987, Jeanne Friedman conducted an observation of the Respondent's class. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on October 23, 1987, to go over the prescription for improvement and outlined a time deadline for each suggested resource. A second evaluation conducted on November 30, 1987, also found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. On December 11, 1987, a conference for the record was conducted to review Respondent's performance. Respondent was reminded that a failure to correct deficient areas would result in termination of employment. Doretha Mingo and Leeomia Kelly conducted evaluations of Respondent on March 1, 1988. These evaluators found Respondent deficient in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On March 9, 1988, a conference for the record was held to summarize Respondent's work performance. At that time Respondent was given an annual evaluation which found her to be unacceptable in the following areas of performance: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher- student relationships. Respondent was notified at this conference that the principal would be recommending nonrenewal of the employment contract. Respondent was observed on April 13, 1988, by Ms. Friedman and Michael Conte. Both evaluators found Respondent to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction. In each of the TADS reviews given to Respondent, conclusions of deficiency were based upon objective observations made during the class period. For example, students found to be off task were observed to be disregarding Respondent's instructions and findings of inadequate planning were based upon inadequacies found in Respondent's plan book (not describing the lesson taught or incompletely stating the subject matter). In each instance, Respondent was given a prescription as to how to correct the noted deficiency. Respondent was given copies of the evaluations at the time they were reviewed with her. Further, Respondent was given copies of the memoranda kept regarding the conferences for the record. Resources were offered to Respondent to assist her to make the corrections required. On April 25, 1988, Respondent was notified that the subject of her continued employment would be raised at the Board meeting to be conducted April 27, 1988. Respondent was advised that the Superintendent intended to recommend nonrenewal of Respondent's contract which, if accepted, would preclude future employment. This letter was written by Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent. The Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1988-89 school year. On April 28, 1988, Patrick Gray wrote to Respondent to advise her of the Board's action. In each of the years for which she received unacceptable evaluations, Respondent's students performed satisfactorily on school-administered standardized tests. Such tests were not, however, gauged to measure the subject matter which Respondent had been responsible for teaching in those years. During the 1987-88 school year Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1986-87 school year. Respondent repeatedly failed to perform the duties which were expected of her despite many attempts to assist her with any remediation needed. Further, by her failure to remediate in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction, Respondent failed to communicate with her students to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 20th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2798 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The first 3 sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 5 through 12 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 13 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 14 through 19 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "sometime in February, 1988," and the following qualification, paragraph 20 is accepted. The opinions expressed by the parents were based upon the observations made and not necessarily the comment of their children. The parents drew the conclusions based upon their observation but no conclusion is reached by the undersigned as to the accuracy of those conclusions. It will suffice for the purposes herein that the-parents believed their conclusions to be correct. No time was clearly established for the parental comments regarding Respondent's ability or performance. Paragraph 21 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 22, with the following qualification, it is accepted. The opinion expressed by Conte that students "were not comprehending what they were doing or what they were supposed to be doing ..." Such comments have not been considered as Mr. Cote's ability to read the minds of the children. Rather, such comments have been read to more accurately mean: based upon his experience and expertise, "the students did not appear to comprehend, etc." The last sentence of paragraph 22 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, conclusions of law or comment not appropriate for a finding of fact. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER (HAVING PRESUMED IT SUPERSEDED THE EARLIER FILED RECOMMENDED ORDER): Paragraph 1 is accepted as to Respondent's age but the balance is rejected as unsupported by the record. The weight of the evidence established Respondent has not taught for 32 years. She has been a teacher by profession that long but not working all that time. Paragraphs 2-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law not accurate under the facts of this case. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent the subject matter is qualified and addressed in finding of fact paragraph 22, otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez 2780 Galloway Road Superintendent Miami, Florida 33165 School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue William DuFresne Miami, Florida 33132 DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are as follows: Whether Respondent had an instructional employment contract that required cause for termination. Alternatively, if Respondent had a contract requiring cause for termination, whether there is cause for termination of that contract within the meaning of Section 231.36, Florida Statues, and Rule 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Escambia County School Board (Board), is a unit of local government charged with the operation of the public school system in Escambia County, Florida, including the employment of teachers under certain contract conditions. Contracts and terms of service for regular members of the instructional staff are required to be in writing. See Section 230.23(5)(d), Florida Statutes. The Escambia County School Board also provides instructional services to juveniles under detention at the Juvenile Justice Center. Respondent was employed by the Board as a teacher during the 1994-1995 school year. During the 1994-1995 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach at the Juvenile Detention Center in Pensacola, Florida. Student S.C. met Respondent at the Pensacola Detention Center of the Juvenile Justice Center while he was an instructor at the Center. After she left the Pensacola Detention Center, she moved to North Carolina to live with her step-mother and father. While there, she wrote to Respondent; and sometime in early September she allegedly received correspondence from Respondent, including one letter dated September 5, 1995. The letter S.C. sent and the letter of September 5, 1995, do not appear to be discussing the same things. Respondent turned the letter S.C. wrote him over to his supervisor at school when he received it. Respondent denies writing or sending the letter of September 5, 1995 addressed to S.C. The September 5 letter's envelope had a return address which belonged to Respondent, and was signed "Ri" or "Rc". However, S.C. was unable to testify as to whom the letter actually came from. She did not recognize the handwriting as that of Respondent. More importantly, the Petitioner attempted to have the handwriting analyzed to determine whether the Respondent wrote the letter. The handwriting analysis determined that "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a conclusive opinion" that Respondent wrote the September 5, 1995 letter. The Respondent also has been accused of sending other letters to people, including a threatening letter to the President of the United States, which he denied having done. All these letters came from a Rick Sapp in Pensacola but were not from the Respondent. So, too, during the pendency of these proceedings, an accusation was made that the Respondent had sent a letter to another student at the detention center. The Respondent did not send such a letter. The letter alleged to have been sent by the Respondent other than being signed "Rick" cannot be established to have been from the Respondent since it omits his phone number, address, and has a different return address and name on the envelope and was mailed from Panama City. Student S.C. ran away from North Carolina sometime in September 1995. She was subsequently detained at the Panama City Detention Center. S.C. testified that Respondent called her on the telephone, gaining access by identifying himself as a counsellor. Respondent allegedly told her that he was in love with her and wanted her to call him. Respondent allegedly gave her his telephone number. However, when she reported the call to the staff, other than transferring a "call from a counsellor," she did not say the call was from Respondent but someone sounding like Respondent. S.C. provided a telephone number to the detention worker who called it and asked to speak to Respondent. The party answering the phone said that Respondent was not there and identified himself as Respondent's roommate. S.C. testified she recognized the voice as that of Respondent which recognition is not credible. The Panama City Detention Center maintains a log of phone calls and activities occurring at the facility. The log indicates that on November 19, 1995, the controller received a call for S.C. The controller reported the caller identified himself as the counsellor for S.C. After receiving the call, student S.C. reported to the supervisor that the caller was not her counsellor, but was someone sounding like Respondent. S.C. reported Respondent had left a telephone number which in fact is one of Respondent's telephone numbers. Gene Rochelle called that number on the speaker phone asking for Respondent. The party answering the phone stated he was Respondent's roommate and that Respondent was not at home. Student S.C.'s report and the subsequent telephone call to the same number were noted in the log of the Juvenile Justice Center. S.C. also claimed to have received a letter from Respondent which she turned in to the Panama City Detention Center. The letter, although signed "Rick," has a return address showing the name "Hess" and the address, 1723 17th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32501 (not Respondent's) and appears to have been postmarked in Panama City, Florida. The letter also appears to have different handwriting than the September 5, 1996 letter. Although the letter asks S.C. to call or write, it omits the Respondent's telephone number or address and suggests only that a call be made to 411 in Pensacola to find it. Respondent denies calling or writing S.C. while she was at the Panama City Detention Center and was surprised that she had been there. On the whole, while it may be true that a number of letters were sent, the evidence falls short of disclosing that Respondent sent any of the letters, including the letter of September 5, 1995. The evidence regarding any of these contacts is at best inconclusive. Therefore the charges against Respondent involving S.C. should be dismissed. The District also alleges Respondent maintained an inappropriate relationship with a male student from the detention center, T.R. The original allegations were made by the older brother and lawful custodian of T.R., Michael Jarrell. Although the guardian of the student, T.R., did make an initial statement to Dr. Garber of the School Board accusing the Respondent of wrongdoing, shortly thereafter, upon learning the identity of the person earlier believed to have been the Respondent, T.R.'s guardian, Michael Jarrell, made a second statement clarifying that the person who was identified as Respondent was not the man who had been improperly interacting with his minor brother. Given these facts, the Petitioner has failed to produce any substantial evidence to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with T.R. Therefore the charge of misconduct as it relates to T.R. should be dismissed. Prior to the beginning of the new school year Respondent's 1994-1995 employment contract had expired. On August 14, 1995, William McArthur, Director of Human Resources for the Escambia County School District, signed, at the direction of Superintendent W. L. Maloy, an "Instructional/Administrative Appointment Request" form appointing Respondent to the position of teacher for the 1995-1996 school year. The practice of the Superintendent's office is to fill out the appointment request form on people whom the Superintendent intends to recommend for an annual contract to the Board. The form is placed in the teacher's personnel file and then the Superintendent formally recommends the employment of that person to the School Board by submitting the request form to the Board. The recommendation is required by statute to be in written form. See Section 230.23, Florida Statutes. The Superintendent of Escambia County Schools, among other things, is authorized by statute to recommend to the School Board those employees he determines should receive instructional contracts. See Section 230.33(7), Florida Statutes. The School Board, once recommendation is made by the Superintendent for employment of an instructor pursuant to contract, must act on that recommendation rejecting the Superintendent's recommendations only for good cause. Section 230.23(5), Florida Statutes. The Superintendent never submitted the request form nor recommended Respondent for employment to the School Board. The Superintendent of Escambia County Schools directed William McArthur, Director of Human Resources, to contact Respondent and tell him to return to work as an instructor at the Juvenile Detention Center in Pensacola, Florida. Mr. McArthur contacted Respondent who then reported to the Juvenile Detention Center for instructional duties around August 14, 1995. Since the Superintendent had not recommended Respondent to the Board, the Board never approved a written annual contract for Respondent. Therefore, Respondent could only be working under an oral or implied contract on a day to day basis with no specified term of employment. Approximately one month after Respondent went to work at the Juvenile Detention Center, Dr. Garber, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, was notified by a representative of the State Attorney's Office at the Juvenile Detention Center of a complaint regarding Respondent from a parent relative to his alleged communications with S.C., a female juvenile that had been detained at the center. The representative of the Office of the State Attorney at the Detention Center expressed concern about letters Respondent had allegedly sent to S.C. and wanted him removed from that Detention Center. The School District subsequently received copies of the letters Respondent was alleged to have written to the female student formerly under his instruction at the detention center. Because of the complaint and letters, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay while the District investigated the allegations. At the conclusion of the investigation the Respondent was notified by letter dated October 16, 1995, that the Superintendent would not recommend to the Board the award of an annual instructional contract. On October 16, 1995, Respondent was presented with a letter notifying him that he would not be recommended for any further employment with the school district. The October 16, 1995, letter was the first written notification that his employment would terminate. Respondent stopped working for the School Board on October 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner, Escambia County School Board dismissing the charges of misconduct but upholding the termination of the Respondent, Ricky Sapp, on October 16, 1995 since he was not recommended for annual contact status and did not fall under the protections of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 through 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 through 22, 27, 28 and 30 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 13, 23 through 26, 29 and 31 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons and Whittaker, P.A. 17 Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 William Maloy, Superintendent Escambia County School Board Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Wright holds teaching certificate number 109682, covering the areas of elementary education and junior college. This certificate was issued on October 4, 1978, and is valid until 1989. Wright is employed by the Duval County School Board and is currently assigned to the Media center in Jacksonville, Florida. Wright has been a teacher with the Duval County School Board since 1962 and was a teacher at Mamie Agnes Jones Elementary School for 17 years, until this incident resulted in reassignment to the Media center. Wright attempted to motivate students by offering them money and other rewards for achieving good grades. He visited in other classrooms and took interest in students that were not in his class. One student he singled out, who was not in his class, was Lillian Simone Allen. He says he singled her out because "he saw potential in her." Wright talked to Ms. Allen's teacher on several occasions about her grades and he talked to Ms. Allen directly. As an incentive, he entered into a "bet" with Ms. Allen whereby she would receive money from him if she made the A/B Honor Role. On February 2, 1987, Ms. Allen walked to school as usual and went to the cafeteria with her friends. Shortly thereafter, Wright entered the cafeteria and said hello to the group. Ms. Allen did not say hello and Wright asked her why she did not respond. Ms. Allen finally said hello. Wright then asked her some questions about her grades and whether she needed any help. Ms. Allen went outside to wait for the buses to arrive with other friends on board. When they arrived, the group went to the playground. After playing for a few minutes, Ms. Allen and some friends headed for the library. On the way, Wright saw her and called her over. He asked her to come to his room to discuss her grades. Wright unlocked his classroom and both entered. He closed the door behind them. Ms. Allen remained standing by the door until Wright called her over to some cabinets along one wall. The area of the room where the cabinets were located was out of the view of the door and the only window in the room. Ms. Allen ended up sitting on the low cabinet. Wright was sitting next to her. A male student in Wright's class entered the room to place his books on his desk. Wright moved away from Ms. Allen when this student was in the room. After the student left, Wright began putting papers in the high cabinet next to where Ms. Allen was sitting. Up until that moment, Wright had been asking Ms. Allen about her grades and whether she needed help with her studies. After the student left, Wright moved over next to Ms. Allen and began rubbing her shoulder. Then he ran his hand down and rubbed her hip and thigh. Wright then stepped in front of Ms. Allen and asked her bra size. Using both hands, Wright touched and rubbed Ms. Allen's breasts. Wright heard the door handle turn and stepped away from Ms. Allen. A female student who was a friend of Ms. Allen's entered the room to drop off her books. As soon as this student, Lakia, left the room, Ms. Allen jumped up and left the room. Ms. Allen was shocked and frightened by this incident. At the time she was twelve years old. She was mature enough that she was wearing a bra, but no teacher had ever touched her in this manner. She is now scared of males and male teachers. When she left the room, Ms. Allen went out to the playground and talked to her friend, Lakia. She then went and told her teacher, Ms. Miles, who in turn took Ms. Allen to the principal's office. An investigation was conducted initially by the principal, Mr. Hurst. Wright denied touching Ms. Allen. A further investigation was conducted by Police Officer Norman of the School Board's Security Office. Wright told Norman that he could have accidently brushed against the left side of Ms. Allen's body. Now Wright denies making this statement. On or about March 4, 1987, Wright was arrested and charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a minor child in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes. Two additional victims were mentioned in the information, but no testimony regarding those children was presented in this proceeding. The information filed on March 13, 1987, charged Wright with lewd, lascivious or indecent acts upon minor children. Wright entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement whereby he was placed on 24 months probation with the special conditions that he perform 80 hours of community service, that he have no contact directly or indirectly with the victims, that he not be employed as a teacher at Mamie Agnes Jones Elementary, and that he attend Arlington Psychological Center for evaluation and successful counseling. In exchange for the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the State Attorney's Office nol prossed the Information. According the Mr. Hurst, the principal, there was publicity about these events at the time and teachers, parents and students were aware of the arrest. Since that time the matter has died down and people no longer ask about it. According to Raymond Bailey, Director of Certified Personnel at the Duval County School Board, if the allegations are shown to be true, the acts are ones of gross immorality or moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and the acts are personal conduct which seriously reduces Wright's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board; the acts violate Rules 6B-1.006(3)(e)(f), and (h), in that they exposed a student to unnecessary harassment or disparagement, they intentionally violated or denied a student her legal rights, and they exploited his professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. In making these findings regarding the actual events of this incident, it recognized that Wright denies that he touched Ms. Allen in an inappropriate manner. It is also recognized that Ms. Allen's testimony contains some inconsistencies, such as the date of the event. Viewing the testimony as a whole, however, it is found that Ms. Allens testimony the more credible and that Wright's testimony is self-serving and inconsistent with statements made to the principal and the Police Officer during the investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order finding Ira B. Wright guilty of the violations charged and permanently revoking his teaching certificate number 109682. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2474 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4(1-4); 5(4&5) ; 6(6); 7- 9(7); 10&11(8) ; 12(9&10) ; 13(11); 14(10); 15-17(11); 18- 20(12-14); 22(15); 23&24(16) ; 25-28(17-20); and 29-33(20). Proposed findings of fact 21 and 34 are unnecessary or Irrelevant. Specific Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Ira B. Wright Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted In substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3(2); 14(4); 20(21); and 26(3). Proposed findings of fact 4-9, 18, and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 10-12, 27 and 28 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 13, 15-17, 19, and 21-25 are Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane Burnett 331 East Union Street Suite 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A Hertz 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on grounds alleged in the Civil Service Notice of Disciplinary Action of May 10, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent in Petitioner's maintenance department as a Carpenter I. Respondent was a non-probationary educational support employee as defined in Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2003), which is substantially similar to Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes (2001), and its predecessors. In October 1995, Respondent's fishing boat collided with a commercial barge. As a result of the accident, Respondent's father and uncle were killed and Respondent's son suffered serious bodily injury. Respondent had a history of poor attendance at work. Sometime prior to October 1998, Respondent's supervisor counseled him and recommended discipline due to unexcused and excessive absences from work. Respondent was arrested in October 1998 as the result of the boating accident. Respondent initially was charged with one count each of vessel homicide, culpable negligence, and boating under the influence (BUI) severe bodily injury, and two counts of manslaughter. On April 28, 2000, a jury found Respondent guilty as charged. It is undisputed that Respondent was absent from work without authorization or approved leave from April 17, 2000 through May 17, 2000. Petitioner terminated his employment effective May 17, 2000. Respondent was sentenced on August 22, 2000, for the following offenses: causing serious bodily injury to another, culpable negligence in the death of another, vessel homicide, and two counts of BUI manslaughter. On appeal, some of Respondent's felony convictions were discharged. However, the Court affirmed Respondent's BUI manslaughter convictions. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The court in Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), certified a question of great public importance involving a jury instruction to the Florida Supreme Court. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, Case No. SC02-1264, Rev.gr. 832 So. 2d 103 (Table) (Fla. November 19, 2002). At the time of the hearing, the Florida Supreme Court continued to have jurisdiction over Respondent's criminal case. Therefore, Respondent's convictions for BUI manslaughter remain in effect. Petitioner's Rule 2.24 provides that personnel absent from work without approved leave shall forfeit compensation and be subject to discipline, including termination. Unavailability for work due to incarceration does not constitute a basis for approved leave and is an unauthorized absence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Cardenas Department of Corrections No. 202263 Reception and Medical Center Post Office Box 628 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 323299-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on his age and gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes; and (b) whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for filing a grievance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public taxing district responsible for educating Bay County's children from pre-kindergarten through high school. Respondent employs roughly 6000 instructional, support, and administrative personnel. Respondent's instructional employees are covered by Respondent's anti-discrimination policy and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the local bargaining unit, the Association of Bay County Educators (ABCE). The CBA governs many aspects of the employment relationship between the District and its teachers, including procedures for involuntary transfers and lay offs due to funding issues. Respondent's schools are divided as follows: (a) high school includes ninth grade through twelfth grade; (b) middle school includes sixth grade through eighth grade; and (c) elementary school includes kindergarten ages through fifth grade. Petitioner is a 51-year-old male. He began working for Respondent as a teacher in 1990. For the 2008/2009 school year, Petitioner worked as a teacher at Respondent's Haney Technical High School and Center (Haney). At that time, Haney operated two concurrent programs: a technical education program and a high school program. Petitioner taught physical education and science in the high school program. During the 2008/2009 school year, Respondent decided to eliminate the Haney high school program due to budget cuts and lower student census. Respondent also made the decision to combine the Haney technical education program with an adult education program from another closed school. The Haney high school program was not Respondent's only major adjustment for economic reasons. Respondent also closed five other schools and cut over 100 positions. This process resulted in 154 displaced teachers. All of Haney's high school teaching positions, including Petitioner's, were to be eliminated. Sandra Davis, principal at Haney, asked for voluntary transfers. No one in the high school program volunteered to transfer. Ms. Davis requested that certain high school teachers remain at Haney to teach in the restructured program at Haney. Ms. Davis made the decision to keep the teachers at Haney based on consideration of the projected need in the restructured Haney program for the upcoming year and after considering the teachers' certifications and experience. Teachers with continuing contracts or professional service contracts, who were not to remain at Haney, were placed in the displaced teachers' pool. The pool included Petitioner and all teachers who worked in schools or programs that Respondent intended to eliminate. There was a meeting on April 20, 2009, between Superintendent William Husfelt, the District's Personnel Department, and the displaced teachers in the District. At the meeting Respondent explained the procedures for transferring/reassigning displaced teachers. The displaced teachers were provided with a list of all of Respondent's vacant positions. Respondent then asked each displaced teacher to list their top three positions. Every teacher was granted an interview for their top three positions. Petitioner selected positions at Hiland Park Elementary School, Lynn Haven Elementary School, and Mowat Middle School. According to Petitioner, he listed the middle school because it was close to his home. He was granted and attended interviews for all three positions. Petitioner recently obtained his certification in elementary education. However, he had no recent substantive experience teaching elementary students. The principals who interviewed the displaced teachers selected the people to fill vacant positions at their respective schools on a competitive basis. During one such interview, it became apparent that Petitioner was not as familiar with the method of teaching reading as more experienced teachers and/or even other recently certified elementary education professionals. The vast majority of Petitioner's experience was teaching high school students. He was used to working with students more similar in age and behavior to middle school students. The principals who interviewed Petitioner did not select him to fill any of his top three positions. At the end of this interview/selection process, there were 34 teachers who were not selected for any position, including Petitioner. During the hearing, Petitioner confirmed that he did not believe any discrimination or retaliation took place prior to and through the time of the interviews. Petitioner understood it was a competitive selection process with over 100 applicants. On or about April 28, 2009, Respondent conducted a second meeting with the remaining displaced teachers. At the meeting, displaced teachers were again asked to list their top three choices for placement from the remaining vacant positions. Petitioner listed Hiland Park Elementary, Tommy Smith Elementary, and Lucille Moore Elementary. Superintendent considered the displaced teachers' lists, their certifications and experience, the vacant positions, and other factors. At no time did Respondent promise to place a displaced teacher in a position of the teachers' choice. Superintendent Husfelt placed Petitioner at Everitt Middle School, teaching science. Petitioner was qualified to fill the position, but it was not one of his choices on his second top-three list. Female applicants were appointed to fill all of the positions at the elementary schools. On or about May 11, 2009, Petitioner and Ms. Davis met to discuss Petitioner's informal grievance relative to his involuntary transfer. Ms. Davis denied the informal grievance. On May 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a formal Grievance with Ms. Davis regarding his involuntary transfer/reassignment. She denied the grievance. On June 10, 2009, Petitioner and Superintendent Husfelt's designee, Pat Martin, had a Step II grievance meeting. Respondent subsequently denied Petitioner's grievance. Sometime in June 2009, Petitioner applied for five vacant positions at Hiland Elementary School. There were fifth grade vacancies, two fourth-grade vacancies, and one third-grade vacancies. Petitioner received an interview for these positions. However, all five positions were filled with female teachers. The involuntary transfer did not cause Petitioner to suffer any loss of pay, benefits, or seniority. The new position was approximately five miles away from his former position. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he researched the Internet to determine the percentage of male teachers in Respondent's elementary schools, kindergarten through grade five. According to Petitioner, four percent of the teachers are male. Respondent presented evidence that approximately 11.58 percent of its elementary school teachers, kindergarten through sixth grade, are male. These raw statistics, standing alone, are not competent evidence that Respondent is intentionally excluding male teachers in its elementary schools. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that he had no evidence regarding the age of Respondent's elementary school teachers, male or female. Therefore, there is no evidence of age discrimination. Petitioner stated at hearing that the transfer to the middle school caused him to suffer an adverse action because industrial air pollution in the area caused him to take more sick leave than when he taught at Haney, about five miles away. This argument has not been considered here because Petitioner raised it for the first time during the hearing and because Petitioner had no competent medical evidence to support his claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Christopher Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida Gerry D. McQuagge 1608 Georgia Avenue 32401 Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Jerry Long, Ed. D. 803 Skyland Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Ms. Jensen's charge of discrimination dated May 19, 1995, alleges that her employer, Selma's Cookies, discriminated against her on account of her disability when it fired her on December 5, 1994. The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether that discrimination occurred and, if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Patricia (Patty) Jensen was 48 years old in November 1994, when she saw the "Help Wanted" sign in Selma's Cookies' window in Altamonte Springs, Florida. Interested in learning new work and in need of earning extra cash Ms. Jensen entered the establishment to inquire about the job. Her interview with Selma Sayin, the company owner, led Ms. Jensen to believe that she would be allowed to work part- time, that Christmas rush was near, and that the company needed someone on the phone to take orders and later to train to do baskets. Ms. Jensen commenced work on or about November 18, 1994. She began working on the front line, taking baked cookie trays off the racks, removing cookies from the trays, putting cookies in bags, and performing similar functions. There were numerous holiday orders for Florida Hospital doctors and the company was busy. Ms. Jensen, working with students on some work-study program, packaged the cookies in tins and boxed the orders for delivery by United Parcel Service. This entailed lifting and weighing boxes and stacking them against a wall. At her age, Ms. Jensen claimed, this was not the sort of work she was interested in learning. She had taught school and done other hard work, including operating her own business, a cleaning service for 20 years, but she wanted to learn other aspects of a business, like taking and filling orders. Ms. Jensen thought she might eventually have another business of her own, something like making up gift baskets. Aside from dissatisfaction with the tasks she was given, Ms. Jensen also felt that Ms. Sayin was brusque and "talked down" to her employees. Still, when Barbara Johnson, who also worked on the packaging line and closed up at night, was terminated, Ms. Jensen accepted the offer of more hours, including the responsibility to close at night. On December 1, 1994, the second evening of Ms. Jensen's expanded shift, she was closing up with one of the high school student employees. They had been told generally to "put everything away," but they did not know exactly what this meant. They tried to put cookies into tubs and the tubs into freezers. This was time-consuming and frustrating as the tubs did not fit easily. Ms. Jensen estimates the tubs each weighed approximately 30 pounds. As she and the high school student were lifting the last two to the top shelf, the girl suddenly let go and exclaimed, "I broke my nail." Ms. Jensen hung on to the tub until the girl could lift again. Ms. Jensen felt a burning sensation down her shoulder. That night, the pain continued with burning, stinging and tingling in Ms. Jensen's arm and shoulder. She went to work the next day and another employee heard her groan as she performed her regular tasks. At the other employee's suggestion, Ms. Jensen went to Selma Sayin to tell her about the injury. According to Ms. Jensen, when she told Ms. Sayin about the injury she was offered no sympathy nor a visit to a physician but rather was told only that others also got aches and pains from lifting and bending and she could take some pain medication. Ms. Jensen called her own physician and when she was unable to reach him, she drove around on her lunch break and found a chiropractor's office open. Both the nurse and the chiropractor spoke to Ms. Jensen but told her that, since her injury was a worker's compensation case, she needed to go through her employer's insurance carrier. Ms. Jensen returned to work still in pain. Over the weekend, December 3 and 4, 1994, Ms. Jensen came in to talk with Selma Sayin. Ms. Jensen first asked if Ms. Sayin would be interested in investing in a business with her; later she asked whether Ms. Sayin's friends or clients might be interested in investing. The answer to both was "no", and Ms. Sayin asked that Ms. Jensen not approach her friends and clients. On Monday, December 5, 1994, Ms. Jensen came late to work. Ms. Sayin called her in and terminated her. Ms. Jensen simply was not learning the job and was merely a seasonal employee who was not working out, according to Ms. Sayin. Moreover, Ms. Sayin was concerned that Ms. Jensen would try to take advantage of Selma's Cookies' clients by approaching them for funds for another business. The December 1, 1994, injury was reported to the company's workers' compensation carrier on December 14, 1994, which is when Ms. Sayin claims that Ms. Jensen called to tell her, after her termination, that she had been injured and needed to get medical treatment. As authorized, Ms. Jensen was examined at Centra Care clinic on December 15, 1994, and was diagnosed with a cervical strain. After the initial examination Ms. Jensen continued to receive treatment from the clinic and other health care providers for a variety of complaints which she claimed all emanated from her injury at Selma's Cookies on December 1, 1994. Treatments were primarily anti-inflammatory and pain medications and physical therapy. The parties settled all further workers' compensation claims with a stipulation and lump-sum payment of $14,500 on November 10, 1995. According to the stipulation executed by both parties, Ms. Jensen achieved maximum medical improvement with a 5 per cent permanent impairment rating (Dr. Dancy) or a 0 per cent permanent impairment rating (Dr. Beckner).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its Final Order dismissing the petition for relief and charge of discrimination against Selma's Cookies. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia F. Jensen, pro se 2301 Oak Drive Longwood, Florida 32779 Selma Sayin, President and Owner Selma's Cookies Post Office Box 160756 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32716 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent School Board of Alachua County (School Board) engaged in discriminatory employment practices or retaliated against Petitioner, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), as alleged in the Petition for Relief; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Wright, an African-American woman of Jamaican descent, worked as a teacher in the Alachua County School District (School District) for several years, the last two positions being at Glen Springs Elementary School (Glen Springs), from 2016-2018, and Metcalfe Elementary School (Metcalfe), for the 2018-2019 school year. Ms. Wright possesses a bachelor’s of arts in education and a master’s of arts in education, both from the University of Florida. In 2017, she completed an educational leadership program at the University of Florida. Thereafter, in October 2017, she entered the School District’s administrative pool, and she informed Glen Springs Principal Armstrong of her intentions to seek an administrative position within the School District. The School District did not hire or promote Ms. Wright to an administrative position during the 2017-2018 school year. Mr. Purvis, the School District’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, testified that it is normal for a person who enters the administrative pool for consideration for an administration position to wait some time before receiving an appointment to such a position. Mr. Purvis testified that is not common for an administrative pool applicant to be appointed assistant principal or principal within three months of entering the administrative pool. In December 2017, Ms. Wright approached Principal Armstrong and expressed that she was experiencing what she believed was harassment, including an attempted break-in at her apartment, people tracking or following her, someone tampering with her car’s gas tank, someone hacking her cell phone, and an instance in which a fire truck, which she believed may have been operated by another school principal’s husband, allegedly attempted to block her car from driving to a School District leadership meeting. Ms. Wright requested leave to deal with these issues, which Principal Armstrong granted. On February 9, 2018, while Ms. Wright served as the Behavior Resource Teacher at Glen Springs, she was involved in an incident in the cafeteria, where some students were being served breakfast. Ms. Wright testified that she noticed one student was “staggering” and then fell down. Then, she began to feel “sick” and “woozy,” and noticed three other students who “appeared to look dizzy and sick too.” She also made a statement that she observed other teachers who were falling in slow motion. She then ordered a lockdown of the cafeteria, and ordered all students to their classrooms. Ms. Wright then went to the front office, and Principal Armstrong called the school nurse and district office, which sent a school resource officer from a neighboring school, and Ms. Finley (the School Board’s Supervisor of Human Resources), to Glen Springs. Ms. Wright refused services from the school nurse, although she admitted that she did not feel well. When Ms. Finley and the school resource officer arrived, she agreed to be transported by Ms. Finley to the emergency room at North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC). Ms. Finley drove Ms. Wright to NFRMC, and she and the school resource officer, who followed in a separate vehicle, waited until Ms. Wright was admitted to the emergency room. Ms. Finley testified that she and the school resource officer gave Ms. Wright their cell phone numbers, and told her to call when she was released. Ms. Wright stated that NFRMC discharged her, with little treatment, that same day (a Friday). However, over that weekend, she experienced other issues and requested to be returned to NFRMC, and was transported after receiving EMS services. Ms. Wright’s recounting of this second visit to NFRMC offers a harrowing description of a ten-day hospital stay that included an unusual hospital room with a bed on the floor, visits from a judge, and nurses and doctors (one of whom she believed was the parent of a Glen Springs kindergartner) injecting her with substances that caused partial paralysis. After her second discharge from NFRMC, and after receiving clearance from her treating physician, on March 12, 2018, the School District decided to not return Ms. Wright to her previous position at Glen Springs, but rather placed her in a temporary position at the Student Services Department at the Manning Center, analyzing charter school data and serving as a liaison for charter school families, for the remainder of the school year. Ms. Wright received the same salary and benefits as her teaching position at Glen Springs. Ms. Wright requested that Ms. Finley, an African American woman, facilitate her placement in a new teaching position for the next school year. Ms. Finley offered Ms. Wright a position at Lake Forest Elementary School as a Title I Intervention teacher, which she declined. Thereafter, Ms. Finley offered Ms. Wright a position at Metcalfe as a Title I Intervention teacher for the 2018-2019 school year, which she accepted. During her employment at Metcalfe, Principal Jacquette Rolle asked Ms. Wright to utilize a certain curriculum for instruction and perform assessments in order to track student performance, as required under School Board and state guidelines. When Ms. Wright refused to do so, Principal Rolle issued a 24-hour notice for a meeting to be held at Metcalfe with Principal Rolle and other School District officials, on October 5, 2019. Ms. Wright testified that she had another subsequent meeting with Principal Rolle, in which Principal Rolle “yelled in my face, not in a low tone, at a high tone.” On April 9, 2019, while working at Metcalfe, Ms. Wright contacted the FBI to complain that someone had again hacked her cell phone. The FBI referred her to the Gainesville Police Department, which then contacted Metcalfe’s school resource officer, Officer Davis, to respond. Officer Davis testified that, after the Gainesville Police Department dispatch center contacted him, he met with Ms. Wright. Officer Davis testified that she relayed concerns about events that happened at Glen Springs, that different school principals were following her, that people were in her attic, and that her car had been tampered with at a car dealership. He stated that “[s]he was like continually talking. She would talk about one subject and then all of a sudden she would change to another subject that was unrelated to what she was actually talking about at the time.” Officer Davis testified that, as a police officer, he has received training with respect to identifying individuals experiencing mental health crises, and in de-escalating such situations. Although Officer Davis did not believe that Ms. Wright met the criteria for consideration for a Baker Act, he reported that she was experiencing mental health issues that needed to be evaluated. Officer Davis prepared a report, dated April 9, 2019, that he shared with Principal Rolle and that was also provided to the School District. Principal Rolle also provided a letter, dated April 9, 2019, that summarized her concerns with Ms. Wright, to the School District. Mr. Purvis, the School Board’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, received Officer Davis’s report, as well as Principal Rolle’s letter, and decided that Ms. Wright must undergo a “Fitness for Duty” evaluation, pursuant to School District Policy 3161. This policy states: If the Superintendent believes an instructional staff member is unable to perform essential functions of the position to which the staff member is assigned, with or without reasonable accommodations, the staff member will be offered the opportunity for a meeting to discuss these issues. The Superintendent may require an instructional staff member to submit to an appropriate examination by a health care provider designated by the Board to determine whether or not the staff member is able to perform essential functions of the position to which the staff member is assigned, with or without reasonable accommodations. The Board shall pay any uninsured fees for such examinations. The staff member will be required to execute a release that complies with the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in order to allow the report of the medical examination to be released to the Superintendent and to allow the Superintendent or his/her designee to speak to the health care provider who conducted the medical examination to get clarification. Refusal to submit to an appropriate examination or to execute the HIPAA release will be grounds for disciplinary action in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. As required by Federal law and regulation and Board Policy 3122.02, Nondiscrimination Based on Genetic Information of the Employee, the Superintendent shall direct the provider that is designated by the Board to conduct the examination, not to provide any genetic information in the report of the medical examination. Pursuant to State law and in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, the results of any such examination shall be treated as a confidential medical record and will be exempt from release, except as provided by law. As required by Federal law, if the District inadvertently receives genetic information about an individual who is required to submit to an appropriate examination from a medical provider it shall be treated as a confidential medical record. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent and approval of the Board, an instructional staff member may be placed on a leave of absence related to fitness for duty. Such leave shall be without pay; however, the employee may use accrued leave, if available. Furthermore, the Superintendent may recommend the instructional staff member’s dismissal based upon the results of the medical examination. The instructional staff member is entitled to a hearing as provided for in Florida law or the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Ms. Wright contended at the final hearing that she never met with the School District Superintendent, who, under this policy, is the individual responsible for requiring a “fitness for duty” evaluation. Mr. Purvis testified that it is the common practice of the School District for the designee of the Superintendent, such as the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, to require a “fitness for duty” evaluation. Mr. Purvis, Mr. Brooks (the School District’s Supervisor of Human Resources), and Ms. Wright met and discussed this policy and the “fitness for duty” evaluation. On April 10, 2019, the School District placed Ms. Wright on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of a “fitness for duty” evaluation. Several doctors examined Ms. Wright and these doctors referred her to a licensed psychologist, who conducted an evaluation on May 2, 2019; the psychologist concluded that Ms. Wright was not fit to return to her duties as an elementary school teacher. On June 5, 2019, Mr. Purvis, Mr. Brooks, Ms. Wright, and Carmen Ward (the teacher union’s president), had a meeting in which Mr. Purvis and Mr. Brooks shared the results of the “fitness for duty” evaluation. Mr. Purvis explained to Ms. Wright that, based on the psychologist’s evaluation, she was deemed to be unfit for duty, and would be placed on a leave of absence for the 2019-2020 school year. At a September 17, 2019, meeting, the School Board approved the placement of Ms. Wright on unpaid leave. Mr. Purvis afforded Ms. Wright the opportunity to use her accrued paid leave during this unpaid leave time period, and gave her a deadline of June 27, 2019, to notify the School District’s human resources department of her decision. Ms. Wright did not meet that deadline, but later, on January 6, 2020, requested some paid leave, which Mr. Purvis granted. Ms. Finley and Mr. Purvis credibly testified that the School District would welcome Ms. Wright back to employment with the School District, if she would receive appropriate treatment and clearance from a medical professional that would indicate she met the “fitness for duty” requirement in School District Policy 3161. After more than a year, Ms. Wright has failed to make any attempt to do so. Ms. Wright presented no persuasive evidence that the School Board’s decision concerning, or actions affecting, her, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by race or national origin-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful race or national origin discrimination. Ms. Wright presented no persuasive evidence that the School Board retaliated against her for participating in a statutorily-protected activity. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful retaliation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Marshalee M. Wright’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Karen Clarke School Board of Alachua County 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Marshalee M. Wright Post Office Box 141981 Gainesville, Florida 32614 (eServed) Brian T. Moore, Esquire School Board of Alachua County 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 254645, which covers the areas of administration and supervision, health education, adult administration, and physical education, and is valid through June 30, 1997. Following his graduation from Florida A&M University in 1969, Respondent obtained a teaching position with the Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Respondent remained in the employ of the Board as a teacher and then as an administrator until he retired effective May 28, 1992. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was the assistant principal for community education at L.C. Evans Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Evans"), a position he had held since November of 1987. Dorothy Mindingall was the principal at Evans and Respondent's immediate supervisor. Among Respondent's responsibilities as the school's assistant principal for community education was to bring to the school adult education classes, offered by the Miami Northwestern Adult Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"), that the community wanted. During the 1990-91 school year, adult education sewing classes taught by Irlina Moore, adult education parenting classes taught by Joni Singleton, and adult education GED classes taught by Bertha Cochran and Sophia Ann James Hall were offered at Evans in the evening hours. As the only school administrator on duty at Evans that time of day, Respondent was responsible for monitoring the activity that was then taking place in the building, including that related to these adult education classes. The adult education teachers viewed Respondent as their immediate supervisor, even though it was actually Betty Major, the Center's assistant principal for adult education, not Respondent, who had been assigned that supervisory responsibility. Major had little or no contact with the teachers. The adult education classes at Evans had been established only after Respondent had approached the principal of the Center, Will Miller, and requested that Miller authorize the establishment of the classes. While Miller did not exercise any supervisory authority over Respondent, the classes could not be offered at Evans without Miller's authorization. Miller gave his authorization and hired the teachers Respondent had recommended to teach these classes. He did so, however, with the caveat that the classes would be discontinued if they had enrollments of less than 25 students. After their hiring, Respondent told the teachers to recruit students for their classes and to assist the students in the registration process. In addition, he suggested to Moore that she pay for the registration of students who were unable to afford the registrations fee. Moore did as she was told. She was subsequently reimbursed by only a few of the students. The adult education classes held at Evans during the 1990-91 school year were poorly attended. Many students who were registered, including those whose registration fee had been paid by Moore, rarely, if ever, showed up for class. Generally, only two or three students were actually present for Moore's sewing classes. Cochran and Hall, on the average, had eight to ten and four to eight students, respectively, attend their GED classes. Respondent was aware of these attendance problems. He also knew, as did at least some of the adult education teachers teaching these classes, that if a student was marked absent for six consecutive days the student would no longer be considered enrolled in the class for purposes of determining whether class enrollment was sufficient to justify the continuation of the class. Respondent instructed Moore to mark students present who were actually absent from class. Thereafter, at a meeting held in November of 1990, the subject of which was the recruitment and enrollment of adult education students, Respondent gave similar instructions to the teachers in attendance-- Moore, Cochran and Singleton. Moore and Cochran acted in accordance with Respondent's instructions and intentionally falsified their class attendance records. Cochran, though, did so for only approximately one month before deciding to resign her position at Evans. Hall was not present at the November, 1990, meeting. On two or three different occasions, however, in the hallway outside of her classroom, Respondent advised her to mark students present who were actually absent from class. In or around January of 1991, Hall began following Respondent's advice and, as Moore and Cochran had already done, and Moore was continuing to do, started submitting attendance records that she knew overstated the number of students actually attending her classes. She continued to do so until March or April of that same year. In submitting falsified attendance records, Moore, Cochran and Hall were motivated by a desire to retain their jobs teaching at Evans-- jobs they knew were at risk because of the relatively small number of students who were regularly attending their classes. Respondent used these attendance records, which he knew were inaccurate, to prepare the community school activity reports it was his responsibility, as assistant principal for community education, to submit to his supervisor his each month-- in particular, those portions of these reports which reflected the number of enrolled students in Moore's, Cochran's and Hall's classes and the number of "participant hours" purportedly generated by these classes during the reporting period. Accordingly, these reports, as Respondent was aware, made it appear that more students were participating in the adult education program at Evans than was actually the case. Had the truth been revealed in these reports, it may very well have raised questions as to whether Respondent was satisfactorily performing his responsibility of providing the community with what it wanted in the way of adult education classes. Respondent therefore had a motive to keep the truth from his superiors and to mislead them regarding the actual extent of community participation in the adult education program at Evans. Respondent's superiors, however, ultimately uncovered the truth following an investigation into the matter. During the investigation, Moore, Cochran and Hall were each questioned on more than one occasion by Michael Malone, the Board's police coordinator. Initially, neither of them specifically admitted falsifying attendance records. Cochran and Hall, in fact, specifically denied engaging in such activity. Subsequently, however, they all told Malone the truth and in so doing implicated Respondent. Moore and Hall did so only after they had met with Cochran, who had already revealed the truth, at Cochran's home to discuss the matter. Neither Moore nor Hall told Malone about the meeting. Hall did mention to Malone, though, that she had attended a meeting at the Center at which "Miller had told everyone present about the investigation and how four teachers were in serious trouble" and that, as a result, "she now realized how serious this matter [wa]s." After Respondent was formally advised of the results of the Board's investigation at a March 11, 1992, conference-for-record, he decided to retire. His retirement as an employee of the Board was effective May 28, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations found above and disciplining him for having committed these violations by suspending his teaching certificate for a period of three years and placing him on probation, subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem appropriate, for a period of two years following the end of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of November, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of November, 1993.
