The Issue Whether the Petitioner has cause as set forth in the notice of specific charges to order that the Respondent's professional services contract not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools with the school district of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. North County Elementary School (North County) and Myrtle Grove Elementary School (Myrtle Grove) are public schools in Dade County, Florida. Respondent graduated from North Eastern Illinois University in 1978. She began her employment with the Petitioner at North County at the beginning of the 1987/88 school year. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system provides for periodic observations of a teacher's performance that is followed by an evaluation of that performance. The evaluator records what he or she considers to be observed deficiencies in the teacher's performance and provides a plan, referred to as a prescription, for performance improvement. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the TADS method was used to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent taught at North County during the 1987/88 school year. The principal of North County for that school year was Gertrude Pope. Ms. Pope evaluated Respondent's performance based on the TADS method and rated her overall performance as acceptable. Ms. Pope testified that Respondent had difficulty in classroom management during the 1987/88 school year, and that she tried to help Respondent improve her classroom management by giving her materials, having her observe other teachers who were good in classroom management, and by having her view a videotape on assertive discipline. Ms. Pope wanted Respondent to develop and use in her classroom an assertive discipline plan, which consists of strategies to maintain discipline in the classroom and specifies behavioral standards and the consequences for failing to adhere to those standards. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1988/89 school year was acceptable. In August 1989, Dr. Ruthann Marleaux became the principal at North County, a position she retained at the time of the formal hearing. On October 27, 1989, Respondent's left knee and left instep were injured at school when a child accidentally stepped on her foot. After that injury, Respondent had a significant number of absences from the classroom caused by pain and the buildup of fluid in her left knee. In February, 1990, Respondent underwent surgery to repair the damage to her knee and was placed on worker's compensation leave. Following that injury, Respondent used a cane or crutches to walk. On May 11, 1990, Respondent returned to her teaching duties at North County. This return to work was approved by the Petitioner's worker's compensation department. Following a conference with the Respondent, Dr. Marleaux, and a coordinator of the worker's compensation department, it was agreed that certain modifications would be made to accommodate Respondent's knee problem. Dr. Marleaux arranged for someone to escort the children in Respondent's class back to the classroom after lunch and after physical education. An aide was assigned to assist Respondent during the first week of her return to work. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1989/90 school year was acceptable. Following several days of absences towards the beginning of the 1990/91 school year, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent by memorandum dated October 10, 1990, that her absences were adversely impacting the educational environment and the progress of the children assigned to her class. The memorandum contained the following directives pertaining to future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to me or in my absence, Mr. Peter Harden, assistant principal. This is in accordance with procedures delineated in the site book. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note stating an unconditional medical release to return to full duties presented to me upon your return to the site. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. There are 180 days in a school year. During the 1990/91 school year, Respondent was absent a total of 101 days. Despite those absences, Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1990/91 school year was acceptable. Respondent underwent surgery again on her left knee in March, 1992. After another worker's compensation leave, Respondent was assigned a teaching position at Myrtle Grove under the supervision of Cecil Daniels, the school principal. Petitioner was advised that, as of June 4, 1992, the following restrictions were placed on Respondent's activities: No weight bearing for more than 20 minutes at one time on the left knee. No squatting. No kneeling. No climbing. No lifting more than 25 pounds at one time. The duties assigned to Respondent were within the medical restrictions delineated by Respondent's doctor. On June 11, 1992, Respondent refused to assume her assigned duties at Myrtle Grove. Respondent asserted that she was entitled to light duty employment and that she had been assigned too many children. As a result of Respondent's refusal, Mr. Daniels dismissed her for the day and employed a substitute teacher for the day. On June 12, 1992, Mr. Daniels held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent concerning this incident. There was no evidence as to Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1991/92 school year. 1992/93 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was again assigned to Myrtle Grove for the beginning of the 1992/93 school year. Shortly after school began, Mr. Daniels discovered that Respondent had failed to follow school procedures at the end of the 1991/92 school year pertaining to the records that are kept for students. Mr. Daniels had a conference for the record with Respondent on September 30, 1992, at which he discussed this deficiency with her and also discussed with her two concerns he had about her class management. One concern was the result of a complaint he had received from a parent who reported that Respondent had not attended to an injury to a student. The second concern was that there had been several fights between students in her class. On or about October 8, 1992, Respondent was transferred from Myrtle Grove back to North County. Mr. Daniels had asked the district office to make this transfer. By memorandum dated October 16, 1992, Dr. Marleaux advised Respondent in writing that the directives pertaining to absences from the work site as set forth in her memorandum dated October 10, 1990, were still in effect. Petitioner maintains an employee assistance program (EAP) as a resource for employees who have personal or family problems that may be impacting an employee's job performance. On October 23, 1992, Dr. Marleaux referred Respondent to the EAP because of marked changes in Respondent's mood. Respondent had been seen crying in the classroom and in the teacher's lounge. She was visibly upset and physically shaking. Respondent testified that she was seen by a mental health professional as a result of that referral, but there was no evidence that Respondent benefited by the referral. Respondent testified that she did not think she needed help at the time the referral was made. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on October 26, 1992. There was no evidence that the timing of this observation, in light of Respondent's behavior that resulted in the EAP referral, was inappropriate. Dr. Marleaux's observation was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the category of classroom management. Respondent began the instructional activities of the class 20 minutes late and ended the instruction 15 minutes early. There were a number of off-task students to whom Respondent did not respond either verbally or non-verbally. Although Respondent had classroom rules, it was Dr. Marleaux's observation that the behavioral expectations had not been made clear to the students and that Respondent was not implementing her assertive discipline plan. There was a contention that Dr. Marleaux was overly critical in her observations of Respondent. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on October 26, 1992. Dr. Marleaux's observation report included a prescription to remediate Respondent's unsatisfactory performance. This prescription consisted of a number of assignments that Respondent was to complete by a date certain. She was to observe a teacher with a successful assertive discipline plan, develop five strategies used by that teacher to improve classroom management, and review her assertive discipline plan with the assistant principal. She was also to complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and to develop lesson plans which required full periods of instruction. The respective deadlines for completing these assignments were between November 6 and November 16, 1992. These prescribed assignments are found to be reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent to improve her job performance. Peter Harden was assistant principal at North County during the 1992/93 school year. Mr. Harden formally observed Respondent in the classroom on November 24, 1992. His observation was between 1:30 p.m. and 2:11 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following his observation, Mr. Harden prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in classroom management as unacceptable. Mr. Harden observations were similar to those of Dr. Marleaux during her observation the previous month. Mr. Harden observed that off-task students were neither verbally nor non- verbally redirected. Respondent began the instructional activities 20 minutes late and ended the lesson 19 minutes early. Respondent did not make behavioral expectations clear to the students. The students did not appear to be aware of the class rules and regulations. The observation report contained prescribed assignments that Mr. Harden believed would help Respondent improve her deficiencies in classroom management. A deadline of December 14, 1992, was set for Respondent to complete these assignments. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Mr. Harden fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 24, 1992. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 14, 1992, a midyear conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Marleaux with the Respondent and her union representative in attendance. Respondent's TADS evaluations following the formal observations by Dr. Marleaux in October, 1992, and by Mr. Harden in November, 1992, were discussed. Respondent had not completed her prescribed assignments at the time of this conference because she had been ill. Dr. Marleaux extended the deadlines for completing the remaining assignments. Respondent was given notice that if she ended the 1992/93 school year in a prescriptive status, there could be possible employment consequences such as a return to annual contract status or termination of employment. During the conference, Respondent asked permission to observe a handicapped teacher. In response to that request, Dr. Marleaux arranged for Respondent to observe a teacher at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School who had to use crutches to walk. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on January 13, 1993, between 12:55 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in the following areas as being unacceptable: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning based on her observation that Respondent did not follow at least half of her lesson plan as required by TADS. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that out of a one hour lesson plan, Respondent taught for only 20 minutes. Dr. Marleaux observed that there was a lot of wasted class time. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction based on her observation that Respondent's teaching methods confused the students, she did not use the media resources skillfully, and she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies. Respondent did not make any adjustment in her instruction, despite the confusion of the students. The observation report prepared by Dr. Marleaux following the observation in January 1993, contained prescribed assignments that she believed would help Respondent improve the deficiencies noted in her report. She was to write detailed lesson plans and turn them in to the principal weekly. She was to prepare all activities prior to teaching the lesson. She was to utilize the instructional activities recommended by the textbook. She was to follow the instructional methods outlined in the teacher's edition of the textbook. She was to observe a master teacher. These assignments were to be completed by January 29, 1993. Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on January 13, 1993. The assignments prescribed were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Norma Bossard was Petitioner's Executive Director for Foreign Language Arts and Reading and an experienced TADS evaluator. Ms. Bossard and Dr. Marleaux simultaneously observed Respondent in her classroom on February 19, 1993, and thereafter independently evaluated her performance. This review, referred to as an External Review, was during a language arts lesson between 10:45 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she did not develop ideas and information in a meaningful and orderly manner and because there was a lot of wasted class time. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies and strengths. Out of 23 students, only two students completed the assignment. Respondent was oblivious that students were cheating. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not examine work completed by students and she did not monitor whether students were learning. Respondent was prescribed activities in an effort to aid her in remediating her unsatisfactory performance. She was given a prescribed lesson format for language arts. She was to observe a seasoned teacher. She was given a series of books called "Teaching and Learning the Language Arts". Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux and Ms. Bossard fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance during their external review on February 19, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On March 29, 1993, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent in writing that her performance during the 1992/93 school year had been unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. She was advised that the failure to correct these performance deficiencies prior to April 13, 1994, could result in the termination of her employment at the close of the 1993/94 school year. In the spring of 1993, Respondent entered Charter Hospital, a psychiatric facility, for deep depression and anxiety. She was absent for the remainder of the school year since she was physically and mentally unable to work. On April 2, 1993, Dr. Marleaux again notified Respondent that her absences were adversely affecting the educational environment and academic progress of her students. Respondent was again directed to communicate her absences to the principal or assistant principal, to document her absences by a medical note from her treating physician, to provide a medical release to return to full duties, to provide lesson plans for the substitute teacher when she is absent, and to take leave when future absences appeared imminent. During the 1992/93 school year, Respondent was absent 78-1/2 days. On May 18, 1993, Respondent was notified of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memoranda in lieu of a conference-for-the-record because she was on leave. Respondent's overall evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was unacceptable. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Because she had failed to complete the assignments that had been assigned to her in an effort to correct the deficiencies in her unacceptable performance, Respondent's salary level was frozen at the end of the 1992/93 school year so that she did not receive any raise for the 1993/94 school year. 1993/94 School Year Respondent was cleared through the Office of Professional Standards to return to work at North County on August 25, 1993. The medical restrictions delineated by her doctor were implemented. In an effort to reduce the amount of walking she would have to do, Respondent was given a parking space close to the entrance to her classroom and she was given assistance in taking her students to and from lunch, to the library, and to the physical education field. Respondent was also given the same directives pertaining to absences that had been given to her on previous occasions, including in Dr. Marleaux's memorandum of October 10, 1990. Respondent requested permission to observe a teacher in a wheelchair. This request was denied because Respondent's doctor had prohibited Respondent from being in a wheelchair. The doctor preferred that she walk, with crutches if necessary, to reduce muscle atrophy. Beginning September 8, 1993, Respondent was absent again for several weeks. On September 22, 1993, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent that the deadline for her to complete her prescribed assignments would be extended until October 8, 1993. This extension benefited Respondent since it gave her more time to remediate her deficiencies. In October, 1993, Respondent requested, through her treating physician, that she be transferred to another school, that she be given vocational rehabilitation, or that she be given a leave of absence. These requests were denied. Although Respondent argued that the denial of these requests was unreasonable, the evidence in this proceeding failed to establish that contention. Petitioner made arrangements for Respondent to have a full- time classroom aide for the remainder of the year. After a full-time aide was assigned for Respondent, Dr. Marleaux required the Respondent's aide to leave the room during formal observations. Respondent asserts that this was unfair and evidences Dr. Marleaux's bias against the Respondent. This assertion is rejected since the Petitioner established that the removal of the aide during a formal observation is standard procedure and allows the students to focus on the teacher without being distracted by the presence of the aide. On November 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Joyce Daniels, an assistant principal at North County. This observation was during a fourth grade math class and was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. Based on her observations, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: classroom management and techniques of instruction. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that Respondent appeared to be unaware of certain students who were being disruptive and others who were not on task. Respondent did not redirect the off-task students either verbally or non- verbally. She was not following her assertive discipline plan. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use calculators as recommended in the teacher's manual and because she wrote on the board in a manner that the students were unable to see. Ms. Daniels prescribed assignments to help Respondent improve her unacceptable performance. She was to observe two of the teachers at the school and she was to view the assertive discipline plan videos and review the assertive discipline workbook. She was to meet with the media specialist for help with the use of media. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Ms. Daniels fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 2, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 3, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux. This observation was from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during her fourth grade math class. Based on her observations, Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent's performance as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made substantial errors during the course of the lesson that created confusion on the part of the students. Respondent did not respond to the students who did not understand the lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use media resources skillfully. She did not use the calculators that were recommended and which were available in the school. She did not have her charts on the blackboard prior to the lesson. When she put the charts on the blackboard, she sat directly in front of them and some of the children could not see. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not consistently utilize the consequences in her assertive discipline plan when students failed to adhere to standards of conduct. The students were punished with different consequences for similar misbehavior. Dr. Marleaux heard Respondent make caustic comments to students. Dr. Marleaux observed that these comments drew attention to these students and embarrassed one of them. Dr. Marleaux again prescribed assignments designed to remediate Respondent's unacceptable performance. The date for submission of her lesson plans was changed to Thursday at Respondent's request. She was to meet with the guidance counselor to learn strategies that would avoid sarcasm and embarrassment to students. She was to meet with the media specialist to learn techniques in the use of media. It was recommended that she use an overhead projector. She was to observe another math teacher who had been helping her. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on December 3, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 13, 1993, Dr. Marleaux held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance assessments and assistance and to discuss possible action by the School District if remediation were not attained. Respondent was apprised that unremediated performance deficiencies must be reported to the Department of Education and that she may not be reappointed to her teaching position for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent was formally observed by Joyce Daniels in January, 1994. In her observation report, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent's performance as being acceptable in all categories. Respondent re-injured her left knee when she fell in February, 1994. Respondent asked permission to use a wheelchair following this fall. Because the information that the school had received from her doctor reflected that Respondent should not use a wheelchair, Dr. Marleaux told Respondent not to use a wheelchair at North County. Respondent subsequently began using a wheelchair, and Dr. Marleaux did not object. During 1994, Respondent was given scheduled time to elevate her leg and put ice on her knee. On March 28, 1994, Respondent was again observed in an external review by Dr. Marleaux and Dr. E. Trausche, an administrator and TADS evaluator employed by Petitioner. This observation was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. during a mathematics lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Trausche rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. The activities in the teacher's edition were not accomplished. She did not use the suggested materials to accomplish the activities. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used erroneous terms in her mathematics lessons and did not seem to fully understand the fractions lesson she was teaching. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management because she did not address off-task student behavior. She did not redirect the students either verbally or non-verbally. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her demonstrations were all abstract. She did not utilize methodology outlined in the teacher's edition or teaching aides that were recommended. Her instructional methods did not meet the needs or abilities of the students. She blocked the students' view of work that was on the chalkboard. Many students were confused as to the lesson and some did not even try to do the work. She distracted students by talking to them while they were working. Respondent did not examine the students' work at any time during the lesson. Respondent was again prescribed activities to help her in overcoming her unacceptable performance. She was to observe another teacher. She was to work with the competency-based curriculum math facilitator. The grade level chairperson would work with her. She was to observe another teacher for the use of manipulatives. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on March 28, 1994. No findings are made as to the reasonableness of the observations made by Dr. Trausche since Dr. Trausche did not testify at the formal hearing. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On April 1, 1994, the Superintendent notified Respondent by letter that she had not corrected her deficiencies and he was recommending to the School Board that she not be issued a new professional contract. On April 13, 1994, the School Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was not recommended for continued employment by Dr. Marleaux. Respondent testified that on the last day she worked in May, 1994, she began to disassociate and was incoherent. Respondent described disassociating as follows: It's where you're physically located close to someone but it's, your perception is that you are some where else. I could hear her voice but it was, sounded as if I was blocks away or something. Like I could barely hear what was being said of people. It was really frightening. (Transcript, page 218, line 22 through page 219, line 2.) Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memorandum dated June 3, 1994, in lieu of a conference-for-the record, due to Respondent's absences. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was absent for 70 days. On many occasions, Respondent was informally observed both at Myrtle Grove and at North County by the same principals and assistant principals who had observed her formally. Respondent's students were often severely off-task and disruptive of other classes. Respondent's class was noisy and out of control. Security monitors frequently came to Respondent's class to get the students under control. Respondent seemed oblivious to the class management problems. Respondent was seen crying three different times. There did not seem to be much teaching and learning taking place. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1992/93 school year, despite many attempts to assist her with activities to remediate her deficiencies. Respondent asserts that Dr. Marleaux's refusal to allow her to use a wheelchair constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition following the fall. Respondent also asserts that the denial of her request for a transfer, for rehabilitation therapy, or for a leave of absence constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition. While the Respondent's testimony supports that contention, there is no medical evidence to support this self-serving testimony. The testimony of Dr. Marleaux and Dr. Annunziata established that the school reasonably accommodated Respondent's condition and did not ask Respondent to perform any duties that exceeded the medical restrictions that had been set by her doctors. Respondent also testified as to certain statements and comments that Dr. Marleaux made to her. 1/ The undersigned finds, based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the totality of the evidence, that Dr. Marleaux's denial that she ever made these statements is more credible than the testimony of the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of workers’ compensation insurance in the State of Florida. The Department issued a Stop Work Order to Petitioner on June 6, 2006. On June 27, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing $272,948.96 in penalties against Petitioner. Petitioner timely challenged the Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and requested an administrative hearing. A formal hearing was held on October 5, 2006. The Recommended Order, which was entered on November 28, 2006, recommended that the Department enter a final order rescinding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the Stop Work Order. On February 23, 2007, a Final Order was issued by the Agency adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order. On March 30, 2007, Petitioner filed the Petition with a supporting affidavit and fee statement which initiated the instant proceeding. In the Petition, Petitioner seeks relief under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. There is no dispute that Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying case. Petitioner seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $20,197.50. There is no dispute as to the reasonableness of the fees sought. At the time the underlying action was initiated, Petitioner was a sole proprietor located in Jacksonville, Florida, which engaged in the business of cutting trees. There is no dispute that Petitioner is a small business party for purposes of Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes. On June 6, 2006, the Department’s investigator, Michael Robinson, conducted a site visit at a job site where he observed five individuals, four of whom were involved in tree cutting activities. During his June 6, 2006, site visit, Robinson interviewed the four individuals and recorded their responses on a field interview worksheet. The workers identified Nolan as their employer, and answered Mr. Robinson’s questions regarding how long they had been employed by Nolan, and their basis of pay. One of the workers informed Mr. Robinson that he had been employed by Nolan for two weeks; a second worker informed him that he had worked for Nolan for three weeks. Both of these workers informed Mr. Robinson that they were paid on a daily basis. A third worker informed Mr. Robinson that he was paid by the job. The workers were compliant and responsive to Mr. Robinson’s inquiries. Mr. Nolan was not at the jobsite at the time of Mr. Robinson’s site visit, but Mr. Robinson obtained his phone number, called, and left a message. Mr. Nolan promptly returned the call. Mr. Nolan was also compliant and responsive to Mr. Robinson’s questions. Mr. Nolan acknowledged to Mr. Robinson that the four individuals interviewed by Mr. Robinson were his employees and that he had no workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Nolan also informed Mr. Robinson that his business was a non-construction business entity and was not required to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Robinson told Mr. Nolan that he was required to have workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Robinson also searched the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found no proof of coverage nor an exemption for Nolan. The Stop Work Order On the same day as the site visit, Mr. Robinson conferred with his supervisor, Robert Lambert, to discuss the issuance of a stop work order. Mr. Robinson conveyed to Mr. Lambert that Nolan had four employees who were non- construction workers, and that there was no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Robinson did not convey the short duration of employment of two employees or that they were paid daily or by the job. Based upon this information, Mr. Lambert immediately approved a Stop Work Order, which was issued that day. Mr. Robinson also issued a request for business records to Nolan for the purpose of calculating a penalty for lack of coverage. Paragraphs 12 through 24 of the Recommended Order, adopted within the Final Order, found that Mr. Nolan started the business, Great Southern Tree Service, in February or March 2005, as a sole proprietor; that he did not employ anyone in 2003 or 2004; that the nature of the tree trimming business is seasonal and sporadic; that Nolan had fewer than four employees during 2005; and that the only time Nolan had four employees was from May 2006 until June 6, 2006, when two workers worked occasionally for Nolan due to tree damage in the Jacksonville area from a storm. Nolan did not produce business records as requested by the Department because there were no such records to produce. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment On June 27, 2006, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Order) was issued to Nolan in the amount of $272,948.96, for the time period June 6, 2003 to June 6, 2006. Attached to the Amended Order is a worksheet with the names of the four workers interviewed by Mr. Robinson on June 6, 2006. Using a statutory formula, Mr. Robinson imputed a penalty for the period October 1, 2003 to June 6, 2006, and a penalty of $100 per day for the time period between June 6, 2003 and September 30, 2003. At the time of the issuance of the Stop Work Order and the Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Lambert were aware of the statutory requirement that to be considered an employer under the workers’ compensation law, four or more persons must be employed by the same private non-construction employer. However, neither Mr. Robinson nor Mr. Lambert was aware of well-established case law holding that the elements of regularity, continuity, common employment, and duration, should be considered in determining the applicability of the law, and that an occasional increase in the number of workers for some unusual occasion does not automatically result in application of the workers' compensation law.2/
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Joe Raymond Johnson was employed as a plant operator (janitor), at St. Petersburg High School. His employment was subject to labor conditions outlined in an agreement between the School Board of Pinellas County and the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO, Local 1221. He has worked at the school since December, 1980. Respondent's immediate supervisor was Dennis N. Nelson, the night foreman who supervises the night crew of 10 plant operators (janitors). The night crew duty hours were from 2:30 - 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. At all times material hereto, Respondent was assigned to the night crew. The plant operators, of whom Respondent is one, are advised at periodic meetings of their duty hours, reporting times, break times, and lunch times, and other facets of their employment. In addition, this same information is posted on the bulletin board in the maintenance office. As a part of their employment orientation, the plant operators, including Respondent, were told how to make arrangements for excused absences and tardiness. They were advised to call in, in advance, and advise Mr. Jones, the Head Plant operator, that they would be late or absent and why. If Mr. Jones is not available, the worker is to leave a message for him with either a secretary in the administrative office or a student working in that office, who is to place the message in Mr. Jones' box for subsequent pick-up. Respondent was personally advised of this procedure by Mr. Nelson, his immediate supervisor. On July 5, 1987, Respondent signed a Stipulation of Agreement with the School Board whereby he was suspended without pay for three days because of a continuing history of unexcused tardiness up to that time. The Stipulation was signed by School Board officials on August 11 and August 26, 1987. On August 27, 1987, the Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County Schools, advised Respondent by letter that the suspension had been approved and cautioning him that future infractions might lead to further disciplinary action, to include dismissal. Subsequent to July 13, 1987, even after signing the Stipulation relating to his prior tardiness, and accepting punishment therefor, Respondent continued to be tardy without excuse or prior notice as called for in the school procedure. Specifically, he was late as follows: July 13, 1987 - 3 minutes late August 13, 1987 - 8 minutes late August 17, 1987 - 2 minutes late August 26, 1987 - 5 minutes late September 24, 1987 - 42 minutes late September 30, 1987 - 1 minute late October 10, 1987 - 4 minutes October 16, 1987 - 32 minutes late November 4, 1987 - 1 minute late November 11, 1987 - 13 minutes late December 3, 1987 - 4 minutes late from lunch December 8, 1987 - 13 minutes late from lunch February 21, 1988 - 21 minutes late As a result of this continuing tardiness, on October 19, 1987, Respondent was called to a conference with the Principal, Mr. Grey, who advised him of the continuing problem. Respondent professed to be unaware of the problem and claimed discrimination by his supervisors. Nonetheless, Mr. Grey advised Respondent to be punctual in the future upon pain of further disciplinary action. When asked to sign a copy of the memorandum memorializing this conference, Respondent refused to do so. On December 16, 1987, Mr. Jones, the Head Plant operator, wrote to Mr. Johnson outlining a series of unexcused tardies and absences in early December, 1987 and indicating he was referring the matter to the Principal for action. Respondent, again, refused to acknowledge this communication. On January 21, 1988, Mr. Jones again wrote to Respondent noting a thirteen minute tardiness that day and again referring the matter to the Principal. As was the case with previous communications, Respondent refused to sign in acknowledgement. According to Mr. Nelson, Respondent failed to call in on any one of the above-mentioned tardiness in advance as was required. He admits that Respondent is generally a good worker but was the subject of some other, unidentified disciplinary problems during the period of his employment. These not being further identified or supported, they are hereby disregarded. Mr. Grey, the Principal, personally spoke with Respondent about his lateness on several occasions. Initially Respondent offered no explanation for his tardiness but with regard to the last two incidents, indicated he had physical problems. Respondent also, on one occasion, indicated to Mr. Grey that the plant operator, Mr. Jones, was prejudiced against him. Mr. Grey did not believe Respondent's representations to him that he had tried to call in to say he would be late. After the last referral from Mr. Jones, Mr. Grey decided that more stringent disciplinary action was appropriate and recommended to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent be dismissed. This recommendation was based upon his own interviews with the Respondent and the reports of Respondent's supervisors. While admittedly other janitorial personnel have been tardy without a recommendation for dismissal, their records are not as aggravated as that of Respondent who continued his tardiness regardless of repeated counselings and warnings. Even though Respondent has not been late since February, 1988, Mr. Grey still feels he should be dismissed because regardless of the counselings, Respondent was repeatedly tardy until this present dismissal action was initiated. Mr. Johnson, who is fifty-one years old, has worked for the School Board continuously since December, 1980, and this job is his sole source of income. He admits that there was justification for the three day suspension imposed on him previously but contends that as to the latter incidents being used to support the current action, he called in in advance on most - at least those of significance. He does not consider one or two minutes beyond the starting time as being late, however. That much time could be expended waiting in line to clock in. As to these short periods, he asserts he was there on time but had to wait to sign in and by the time it was his turn, he was late by one or two minutes. What Respondent overlooks, however, is that the sign in clock was purposely set between two and three minutes slow for just that purpose. Consequently, if the clock showed Respondent to be two minutes late, he was, in reality, between four and five minutes late - well beyond the delay time. Respondent also contends without any evidence to support his contention, that the clock was ordinarily inaccurate and was adjusted purposely to entrap employees. Evidence introduced by Petitioner, however, indicates the clock was periodically checked and found to be accurate, except in times of power outages not pertinent here, until it was replaced when it broke down for a week. During that period, however, Respondent was not late. As stated above, Respondent claims that he did call in when he would be significantly late and leave a message with the student who answered. To support his claim, he asserts that neither Nelson nor Jones ever complained to him on those occasions. When he would see them after arrival, they would acknowledge his presence and say they were glad he had made it. On one of these occasions, September 30, 1987, on which date he was forty-two minutes late, he had car trouble and told Mr. Jones about it, when he arrived. During this same period from July, 1987 to January, 1988, he was having physical problems and was under a doctor's care; a fact which he made known to both Jones and Nelson. At one point, he brought in a doctor's certificate which he discussed with the Assistant Principal who told him to leave it in the Principal's box. The Principal denied receiving it, however. These assertions do not, however, establish that Respondent followed the school rules and called in in advance when he was going to be late. Respondent claims that though the school administration is claiming his tardiness as the basis for this dismissal action, in reality it is because of an altercation he had with Mr. Jones over a period of sick leave. In the incident in reference, Respondent had been to the doctor and upon his return to school, signed an application for sick leave furnished to him by Mr. Jones who had indicated it would be approved. When he saw it later, he noted that sick leave had been disapproved. When he spoke with Mr. Jones about this, Jones allegedly told him he didn't have any sick leave accrued. Respondent called the district payroll office and reportedly was told he did have sick leave available, but when Respondent reported this to Jones, Jones supposedly said it didn't matter, he wasn't going to get it. When Respondent complained to the Assistant Principal, the matter was referred back to Jones for resolution. Respondent was counseled about this incident in writing by the Principal and believes it is the real basis for the disciplinary action. Both Grey and Jones deny this, however, and in light of the Respondent's repeated lateness, it is found that the basis for this action is the lateness and not the other matter. Mr. Grey admits that Respondent's tardiness was documented with a view toward disciplinary action but not because of this incident. The documentation was begun before the incident in question and relates solely to the continuing tardiness. Respondent has not been late since January 21, 1988, because he fears the separation action. He made up his mind to be on time and he has been on time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Joe Raymond Johnson be suspended without pay from employment with the School Board of Pinellas County for thirty days. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 7th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1370 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner NONE By the Respondent 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not entirely supported by of record. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17 - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. 20 - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney 1960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida 34624 B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire 1433 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Suite C Clearwater, Florida 34616 Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County 1960 East Druid Road Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Ward Carroll held a Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 169701, which was valid from July 1, 1972 until June 30, 1982. As a certificate holder Respondent was disciplined on August 7, 1979, when the State Board of Education entered an Order adopting a set of stipulated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Board's Order suspended Mr. Carroll's license to teach for sixty (60) days beginning on June 15, 1979. This discipline resulted from Mr. Carroll's numerous absences from school due to his drinking alcohol. The stipulation recited several arrests and numerous admissions to the Detox (detoxication) Center for disorderly intoxication. These instances occurred between 1976 and 1978. According to the stipulation Mr. Carroll voluntarily entered an alcoholic treatment program on December 4, 1978 for a period of six (6) months. During all times pertinent to the Amended Administrative Complaint Mr. Carroll was employed as a full-time science teacher by the School Board of Duval County at Fletcher Senior High School. On May 18, 1979, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel of the School Board of Duval County, Florida, sent a letter to Mr. Carroll informing him that he would be employed for the next school year, but he was warned that, Any further indiscretion, however, such as public drunkeness or drinking while on the job will be reported to the Professional Practices Council and could result in a recommendation for your dismissal in accor- dance with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. May 1980 Absence During the 1979-80 school year, Mr. Carroll was absent from his teaching duties without prior approval for approximately one week in May, 1980. Before and during his absence Mr. Carroll failed to give notice of his absence as required by school policy. Upon his failure to appear for teaching as scheduled his principal, Dr. Knight, became concerned about his welfare and sent Mr. Daugherty, his administrative assistant, to look for Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll could not be found during the school day, but after work Mr. Daugherty, who was going to the grocery store with his wife, saw Mr. Carroll walking down the street. He was "in real bad shape" and was redolent of alcohol. When Mr. Carroll was offered a ride home he declined stating, "No, I want to go to the lounge." Mr. Daugherty then took Mr. Carroll to the Jax Liquor Store Lounge and promptly found a police officer. Mr. Daugherty explained his concern about Mr. Carroll to the officer. The officer picked Mr. Carroll up from the lounge and transported him to the Detox Center. Mr. Daugherty, who is now a school principal in Okeechobee, Florida, would not, if requested, hire Mr. Carroll as a teacher in his school. He believes that due to Mr. Carroll's drinking problem he could not be relied upon to appear as scheduled for teaching his classes. Dr. Knight has the same opinion. April 14, 1981 Arrest During the afternoon of April 14, 1981, a passing motorist notified Officer Russell of the Duval County Sheriff's Department that a man was staggering down the middle of East Point Road in Jacksonville, Florida. The patrolman went to the location described, and observed Mr. Carroll walking down the centerline of the street. Mr. Carroll smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. Because of his condition he was transported by Officer Russell to the Detox Center where he was later arrested. July 21, 1981 Arrest At approximately 1:15 a.m. on July 21, 1981, Officer Nixon, a patrolman with the Duval County Sheriff's Department, received a complaint from Mr. Carroll's sister that he was creating a disturbance in her home. She reported that Mr. Carroll was drunk and she wanted him to remain in the house because she thought his condition was too dangerous for him to be out in public. Upon his arrival the police officer attempted to talk with Mr. Carroll but he refused to respond at all. He was quite intoxicated and had to be physically assisted out of the house and into the patrol car. Mr. Carroll was charged with disorderly intoxication and taken to the Detox Centers. Spring 1981 Absences According to Fletcher High School policy teachers were required to either give advance notice of their absences or if such notice was not possible to call the school secretary before 7:00 a.m. of the date on which they would be absent. This notice was required because substitute teachers needed to be obtained as rapidly as possible. If a teacher is too late in giving notice of his absence, it is impossible to obtain a substitute. Other teachers are then required to cover for the absent teacher with the consequential disruption of their omen teaching schedules. During the months of February and March, 1981, there were numerous times when Mr. Carroll did not report his absence as required. He either gave no notice or the notice he gave came after 7:00 o'clock. As a result of his unauthorized absences it was discovered that Mr. Carroll left either inadequate lesson plans or no lesson plans at all for the substitutes who appeared to instruct his class. The failure of Mr. Carroll to timely submit his lesson plans substantially interfered with the ability of the substitutes to teach the appropriate subject material. During one of his absences due to drinking student grades for the third nine-week period were due. Mr. Carroll did not leave any grades with the school administration to be given in his absence. Initially, the administration was unable to obtain the grades from Mr. Carroll. When it appeared that no grades would be available, students were told that they would receive an "I" (Incomplete) grade. This possibility caused much confusion and consternation among the students' parents. It resulted in numerous explanations to them by Mr. Carroll's principal. At the very last moment Mr. Carroll's mother delivered his grade book to the school. The "I's" which were previously placed on the students' report cards had to be removed and the correct grades were then posted. Respondent's unauthorized absences were the result of his being an alcoholic. Frequently Mr. Carroll was unable to go to school because he was in the Detox Center. Finally Mr. Carroll was given a leave of absence beginning on April 21, 1981 in order to seek treatment for his problem. Effectiveness Mr. Carroll's effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously reduced by his alcoholism. He cannot be depended upon to appear at the required time for the instruction of his classes. In two instances he appeared at school with the odor of alcohol on his breath. 1/ Knowledge of and rumors about his alcoholism have reduced the respect accorded him by students at Fletcher High School. On March 12, 1981 Mr. Carroll received an official reprimand from his principal, Dr. Jim Ragans. The reprimand noted that Mr. Carroll had been delinquent in giving notice of his absences to the school administration. The reprimand also noted deficiencies in Mr. Carroll's lesson plans and his completion of the student attendance register. He was warned that any reoccurrences of the enumerated delinquencies would result in a recommendation for his dismissal from teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate 2/ of Otis Ward Carroll for a period of two years pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and that once the revocation period has expired he be recertified only upon an affirmative demonstration that he is rehabilitated from alcoholism. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent is incompetent to teach as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code; and whether or not Respondent's alleged incompetency to teach and perform his duties constitutes just cause to terminate his employment and to terminate his continuing contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the free public schools of Brevard County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and has published bylaws and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is a teacher who was employed by Petitioner from 1976 until his termination in April 2003. He had taught at Palm Bay Elementary from 1984 until 2003. Respondent has a degree in health and physical education. Early in his teaching career he was a classroom teacher; he has taught physical education since 1984. Petitioner conducts annual and interim evaluations of its instructional personnel using a formal Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System. The system delineates specific areas of evaluation, the basis for evaluation, and overall performance scores. The system evaluates nine "performance areas": planning, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, instructional communication, knowledge of subject matter, responsibilities, relationships, management of student conduct, and student evaluation. In addition, there is an overall evaluation. Administrative personnel, in the instant case, the principal and assistant principal, are trained to perform the instructional personnel evaluations. Teachers receive one of three ratings in each performance area: unsatisfactory, needs improvement, or effective. Typically, evaluations are done annually. During his teaching career, Respondent served under five principals. In 1998, Joan Holliday became principal of Palm Bay Elementary. An analysis of the performance evaluations of Respondent's first 22 years of teaching reflects that he was an "effective" and "exemplary" teacher (high ratings during the particular rating periods). The same evaluations reflect recurring, but not consistent, shortcomings in the areas of planning and related responsibilities. In Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Principal Joseph F. Padula, Jr., who had evaluated Respondent from 1984 to 1998, rated him as unsatisfactory in "planning." Comments by Principal Padula describe Respondent's failure to meet the requirements of the Sunshine State Standards and show evidence of "maintaining pace with new curriculum requirements." Principal Joan Holliday's first opportunity to provide an annual evaluation of Respondent was in the 1998-1999 school year. Her assessment reflects Respondent as a teacher who effectively teaches physical education, but could improve in planning, organization, and "could benefit from newer philosophies in physical education." Respondent responded to his 1998-1999 evaluation by letter dated February 25, 1999. The letter is defensive and reflects his opinion that he is making attempts to improve but that he believes that he is an effective physical education teacher. Respondent's 1999-2000 evaluations (there were two interim evaluations during the 1999-2000 school year) reflect that he was responding positively to the previous critical assessments although he continued to struggle with his lesson plans. The evaluations indicate that he was continuing to effectively teach and interact with students. A 2000-2001 interim evaluation, dated December 11, 2000, contains an unsatisfactory rating. This occurs in the "relationships" assessment area and reflects an apparent problem Respondent has related to "kidding" students which was sometimes not well-received and resulted in sporadic complaints from parents. This rating appears to be incongruous with the effective rating he received in "management of student conduct" in the same evaluation. He continued to receive effective ratings in "presentation of subject matter" and "instructional communication." According to Petitioner's Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System, an effective rating describes performance of "high quality" and is the highest rating achievable. The annual evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year rates Respondent unsatisfactory in the "relationships" category. Respondent's "kidding" of students, which caused parental complaints that evoked evaluator's concern and was the apparent basis for the unsatisfactory rating in "relationships" in the 2000-2001 interim and annual evaluations, was clearly subject to interpretation. Testimony did not reveal any "kidding" which would have caused the undersigned to believe Respondent warranted an unsatisfactory rating as defined in the Performance Appraisal System's rating scale definitions. In addition, negative references to Respondent's interaction with "classroom teachers" is not borne out by the testimony. Respondent received five unsatisfactory ratings in his 2001-2002 school year evaluation. He is rated unsatisfactory in "planning," even though it is indicated that Respondent "does turn in his weekly lesson plans," and there is criticism of his failure "to integrate reading, mathematics and writing into [physical education] curricula." At the final hearing, Principal Holliday testified that Respondent's lesson plans for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 were "adequate." He also is rated unsatisfactory in "responsibilities" and "relationships"; these ratings are supported by comments indicating perceived communications and cooperation problems with other faculty. These perceived communications and cooperation problems were not borne out by the testimony of faculty members. On March 11, 2003, immediately prior to his termination, Respondent received six unsatisfactory ratings on an interim appraisal. This interim appraisal is the only evaluation Respondent received during the 2002-2003 school year. The evaluator observes that Respondent continued to fail to indicate in lesson plans how he was integrating writing, reading, and mathematics into his physical education curriculum and that "developmentally appropriate activities should be planned and taught at each class." Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in "instructional communication"; during Principal Holliday's tenure, Respondent had been rated effective (the highest rating) in this area on five occasions. Comments in this category indicate that Respondent "addresses students in a loud, threatening voice." He was rated unsatisfactory in the "responsibilities" category. "Communication with classroom teachers" is referenced in the comments to this category. The unsatisfactory in "relationships" is referenced by a need to continue to "work on his written and oral communication skills with students, parents, and peers." Principal Holliday had determined late in the 2001- 2002 school year that she was going to recommend Respondent for termination by reason of incompetency. As a result, the evidentiary value of this last assessment is questionable. Principal Holliday acknowledges that most of her concerns with Respondent relate to "lesson planning and communication." If Respondent, in fact, had inappropriate communication with students, such communication reflects teacher misconduct, not incompetence. Her testimony reflects that she formally observed Respondent teaching his class infrequently and that when she formally observed, "he did everything he was supposed to do in a correct manner." Principal Holliday's opinions of Respondent's teaching abilities and utilization of new methodology are largely drawn from her review of his lesson plans, not observing Respondent teaching physical education to students. She is critical of Respondent's failure to implement new (sometimes controversial) physical education methodology; however, she acknowledges that none of these new educational theories are mandated. Respondent's lesson plans for his final teaching years were "adequate." As far as Principal Holliday knows all of Respondent's students met the Sunshine State Standards for physical education; the Sunshine State Standards were all noted in his plan book during the final years she evaluated Respondent. The ultimate goal of a teacher is to teach children, not to write lesson plans. During the period of their relationship as principal- teacher, Principal Holliday wrote 29 letters of reprimand to Respondent. There are 58 faculty members at Palm Bay Elementary; during the five years she was principal, Principal Holliday issued four letters of reprimand to other faculty members. Most of the letters of reprimand concern subjects that appear in Respondent's interim and annual evaluations. Six Palm Bay faculty members testified as witnesses for Respondent. They represent 115 cumulative years of teaching experience; each of their teaching careers at Palm Bay Elementary overlap Respondent's, giving each a familiarity with Respondent. While they did not assess Respondent's lesson plans, record and document production, and other administrative details solely in the cognizance of administration, they had ample opportunity to observe Respondent teaching his physical education classes, his interaction with students, his interaction with faculty, his attention to his faculty responsibilities, and other areas formally assessed by the Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System. These informal evaluators collectively report Respondent as "very dependable," having "good rapport with the faculty," appearing to have "well-planned classes," and responsive to suggestions [made by other faculty members] for physical education for younger children, "very helpful." One witness advised, "he jokes with the kids; talks with them in a way they understand." One witness offered the unsolicited comment, "we really consider him to be an asset to the school because of his rapport with some of the older children. It's really nice to have him there." A witness who had early morning bus duty with Respondent reported that he was punctual and dependable. Nothing reported by any of these teacher/witnesses suggests a lack of teaching competency; in fact, their testimony suggests that Respondent was a good teacher. The evidence presented by Respondent's teaching contemporaries, admittedly not trained evaluators, presents a dramatically different assessment of Respondent's teaching performance than does that offered by Petitioner. The testimony of Respondent's teaching peers is credible. The assistant principal, who authored critical interim evaluations, testified that she did not witness Respondent interact with any student in an inappropriate way, except that he spoke loudly on occasion; that when she observed him teaching, the children appeared to be learning; that he conducted class in an appropriate and effective way; and that, recently, he appeared to be complying with Sunshine State Standards in terms of developing students' physical skills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent should not have been terminated and reinstating his continuing employment contract effective the date of his termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier & Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Post Office Box 8248 Cocoa, Florida 32924-8248 Alan S. Diamond, Esquire Amari & Theriac, P.A. 96 Willard Street, Suite 302 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Richard A. DiPatri, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of the School Board, is guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.37, and if so, whether termination of her employment is an appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating employees in the school district. Respondent is a non-instructional (support) employee at Explorer K-8 School (Explorer) in Spring Hill. She began working at Explorer as a Custodian I in school year 2014-2015 and was assigned the night shift, 3:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Before coming to Explorer, Respondent was a custodian at Hernando High School in Brooksville, but left to fill a vacancy at Explorer, which was closer to her home. She was hired at the recommendation of Homer Lawson, an African American male and head custodian at Explorer. Barbara Kidder is principal at Explorer and has ultimate supervisory responsibility for all employees at the school, including the custodial staff. Lillian DiTucci is the assistant principal and also has supervisory duties over the custodial staff. Custodians at Explorer are assigned to either the day or night shift. Lawson, as head custodian, is responsible for supervising all custodians, regardless of the shift assignment. Eric Harris is the night custodian supervisor and is next in the chain of command below Lawson. Although Lawson works the day shift, he is present for approximately one hour of the night shift and meets with Harris prior to the start of that shift to go over various issues, including performance of custodial staff. Lawson is the first person to arrive at Explorer the next morning and conducts walk-throughs to ensure the areas have been cleaned by the night shift. As head custodian, Lawson is also in charge of custodial supplies at Explorer. If a custodian is out of supplies, Lawson requires the custodian to write on the board the supplies he or she needs for the next day and then he processes the request. The supplies usage is documented in a log book, with notation of the custodian's name and the date the supplies were issued. If the documentation shows one custodian is going through more supplies than the others, Lawson inquires of the custodian. Because of strict budgetary concerns, Lawson is vigilant in tracking the use of supplies. He does not deny necessary supplies, but he will give direction to be more responsible. The School Board has adopted Policy 6.37, which establishes standards for the separation, discipline, and discharge of non-instructional employees, including Respondent. Paragraph (5)(d) recognizes three categories of offenses and a guide for recommended penalties. Relevant to this proceeding are the offenses and recommended penalties for Groups II and III. The penalty for Group II offenses ranges from a written reprimand for the first offense to discharge for a third offense. Group III offenses are the most serious and carry a recommended penalty of "up to discharge" for the first violation. The School Board has charged Respondent with violating two Group II offenses, referred to as items in the policy: Item 7 - Creating or contributing to unsafe, unsanitary or poor housekeeping conditions; and Item 13 - Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. Respondent is also charged with violating five Group III offenses: Item 1 - Insubordination; Item 4 - Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned task; Item 12 - Violation of a posted or otherwise known Board or departmental rule, procedure, order, regulation of any State or County statute or ordinance which is related to the employee's employment; Item 14 - Improper racial or sexual comments, harassment or acts; and Item 23 - Refusal to work overtime or hours as assigned. The Inappropriate Conduct Which Led to the Charges From the very beginning of her employment with Explorer, Respondent exhibited numerous performance issues, including the complete failure to perform assigned tasks, which resulted in a high volume of complaints from teachers and staff throughout the fall term and required multiple meetings with, and direction from, supervisors. On September 4, 2014, or a few days after she began working at the school, Harris met with Respondent regarding her cell phone usage during work hours. Harris witnessed and received complaints from other school employees that Respondent was on her cell phone "a lot," which resulted in less productivity and caused a distraction because she often kept her phone on speakerphone. Respondent responded that she would shut it off and use it only for emergencies. Respondent was assigned to clean the classroom of Michele Hann, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher at Explorer. On Thursday, September 18, 2014, Hann emailed Lawson and stated that her classroom had not been properly cleaned in a manner that was acceptable for ESE students, some of whom had medical needs requiring a very clean environment. She also noted that food from the day before was still on the floor, the paper towels by the sink had not been replaced since the previous Friday, and her Terminator bottle (containing a disinfectant) was empty. Harris was given a copy of Hann's email and discussed these complaints with Respondent. Among other responsibilities, Respondent was required to restock paper towels in the classrooms that she cleaned. On September 19, Lori Linauer, a teacher at Explorer, emailed Lawson that the bathroom in her classroom had been out of paper towels since the day before. Based on these complaints, Respondent was assigned a new area that required less responsibility, but the complaints regarding her performance deficiencies continued. One of her new assignments was cleaning the school's locker rooms. A few days later, Harris received a complaint that the locker rooms were not being cleaned. It takes "at least a half hour [to clean] each locker room to do a good job," and the night shift ends at 11:30 p.m. Harris observed that on September 22 and 23, Respondent did not begin cleaning the locker rooms until around 10:45 p.m. and 11:10 p.m., respectively. These observations enabled Harris to confirm that Respondent was doing her work "quick at the end of the night," without properly cleaning the rooms. Harris discussed this concern with Respondent and even assisted her with cleaning the locker rooms on several occasions. Custodians are instructed to place their carts in the custodial closet at the end of their shifts. On September 25, Harris met with Respondent after she continued to leave her cart and radio in the recreation hall at the end of her shift. Respondent gave no credible reason why she ignored this requirement. On September 29, Harris received another complaint that the locker rooms were not properly cleaned. When he confronted Respondent about this complaint, she explained that other rooms were messy and she had "meetings," implying that she had insufficient time to finish her work. Because Respondent had still not secured her assigned badge that would allow her access to the locker rooms (once they were electronically locked in the evening), Harris had to unlock the boys' locker room at 11:30 p.m. and then retrieve her cleaning materials so that she could finish the job. On October 21, Harris checked the boys' gang bathroom (a multi-use bathroom with six or more stalls) and found the toilet bases filthy and not wiped down. Harris met with Respondent to discuss this concern. The next day he noticed that Respondent failed to properly clean the toilets and mirrors in the girls' gang bathroom. Harris once again met with Respondent to discuss these concerns. Respondent told Harris that she needed a brush with a stick on it to make the job easier. Harris told her that she should clean the toilets the way everyone else did, by bending down and wiping them clean. On October 24, Respondent telephoned the principal's secretary at 4:15 p.m. and said she would be late because she had to pick up her employee's badge. However, Respondent did not pick up her badge that day. On October 28, Joanne Yarin, a Media Specialist at the school, informed Lawson by email that the women's restroom in the media center ran out of paper towels the afternoon before. Yarin had asked Respondent to refill the paper towels, but Respondent told her she wasn't sure if there were any more in the supply room. When the paper towels were not restocked by the following morning, Yarin contacted another custodian who promptly complied with her request. On October 29, Karen Federico, a music teacher at Explorer, complained to Lawson by email that Respondent failed to vacuum her classroom or take out the trash the night before. She also complained that the concession area women's bathroom had no paper towels. On November 3, Tammy Ashurst, a behavior specialist at the school, emailed Lawson regarding her concerns about Respondent's performance. A copy of the email was forwarded to Kidder and Harris. Ashurst pointed out that Respondent's failure to sweep or vacuum the floors was a recurring problem. When she entered her classroom that morning, Ashurst found a large section of the floor dirty and sticky and she had to ask another custodian to clean it. Ashurst asked Lawson to speak with Respondent regarding this issue. On November 5, Respondent telephoned the principal's secretary to say if she was not at work by 5:00 p.m. that day she was not coming in. She did not show up for work. Whether Respondent turned in a leave form for that day is not of record. Beside the performance issues, Respondent did not interact well with other staff at Explorer. On November 7, she was involved in a verbal altercation with another custodian, Haley Carson, whose car (with the Carson baby inside) was nearly struck by Respondent's car the prior evening when Respondent sped out of the parking lot at the end of their shifts. Respondent also had a verbal altercation with another co-worker in the parking lot after parking at an angle and into the adjacent parking space used by the co-worker. Respondent told the co-worker that she (Respondent) always parked like that and to move her car if she didn't like it. On November 7, Harris received a complaint from another school employee, Mr. Baroudi, whose position is unknown, that the garbage in his room had not been emptied on two occasions and food sat in the trash can for days. On November 18, Juliet Figueroa, another night shift custodian who had just started work the day before, was given the rundown on her job (a "411") by Respondent. During the conversation Respondent asked Figueroa if "you know the manager Homer [Lawson]? I don't call him that I call him nigger." During the same conversation, Respondent referred to a former co-worker, Mundreanu, who is Romanian, as a "communist." She also asked Figueroa if she was a Puerto Rican, since Respondent thought she looked like a Mexican. Figueroa was "taken aback" by these comments and reported the incident to Kidder. At hearing, Respondent claimed that Figueroa misunderstood her and that she actually used the word "negro," which means black in Spanish, and not the word "nigger." However, Figueroa understands Spanish and knows the difference between "nigger" and "negro." Respondent's assertion that she did not use this language has not been accepted. On or about November 19, during his morning walk- through, Lawson observed feces in the stalls and soap scum on the walls of the girls' gang bathroom near the school cafeteria that should have been cleaned by Respondent. Lawson spoke with Harris and told him to direct Respondent to take care of it. Harris directed Respondent to clean the area, but she failed to comply with his instructions. Lawson then informed DiTucci. On November 20, DiTucci met with Respondent to discuss these latest performance deficiencies. Respondent refused to attend the meeting unless Lawson was not present, claiming she did not consider him to be her supervisor and he had "disrespected" her at work. At the meeting, Respondent argued the substance was chocolate and not feces, but the areas should have been cleaned regardless of the substance. By then, DiTucci had checked it out and confirmed Lawson's initial findings. Respondent also contended that she was not given sufficient supplies to finish her work, even though she sometimes used three times the amount of supplies as other custodians. Finally, she claimed that Lawson had accused her of stealing supplies but there is no credible evidence to support this assertion. The meeting ended with Respondent threatening to hire an attorney to respond to the charge that she was stealing supplies. On November 21, Harris documented that Maggie, another school custodian, witnessed Respondent's cart not moving for more than an hour earlier in the day. Each room typically takes 15 to 20 minutes to clean, and the cart is parked outside the room for easy access. Harris testified that this may have explained why Respondent's areas were not being properly cleaned. The same day, without seeking permission, Respondent told Harris she was leaving early, saying she "forgot to punch out for lunch goodnight." Custodians are required to punch out for "lunch" from 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m., a paid break. There is no option available to employees to work through lunch period and leave work earlier at the end of the shift. As of November 25, Respondent had still not cleaned the feces off the girls' bathroom wall. As a result, Kidder asked Harris to again direct Respondent to clean the girls' bathroom. She also asked Harris to remind Respondent to turn in a leave form for November 21, and to explain that she must punch in and out for lunch. Respondent finally complied with the directive to clean the girls' bathroom wall after DiTucci and Harris accompanied her to the bathroom, showed her the feces, and directed her to clean the area. On December 1, Stacy Tarbox, a paraprofessional at the school, emailed Lawson and Harris regarding Respondent's failure to clean the girl's locker room. Tarbox noted that it was dirty, the lockers had a thick layer of dust on top, the walls had not been cleaned, and the floors had not been pressure washed for some time. This was the same locker room Harris had previously talked to Respondent about in September. On December 2, Figueroa filed a bullying and harassment complaint against Respondent based on the November 18 incident in which Respondent made disparaging remarks about Lawson and Mundreanu. The essence of the complaint was that these comments created a hostile working environment. That afternoon, Kidder conducted a conference with DiTucci, Lawson, Respondent, and her union representative to discuss the bullying complaint and allegations that Respondent's conduct constituted a violation of three Group III offenses (items 7, 14, and 23) and one Group II offense (item 7). In response to these charges, Respondent initially said she could not remember using any racial terms when speaking with Figueroa but later labeled Figueroa as a liar and threatened to sue her. She claimed that she did not know what a "commie" meant and again called Figueroa a liar. She also said she never saw feces on the bathroom wall. If that was the case, she should have asked Harris where it was rather than doing nothing. In response to the charge that she refused to meet with her supervisor, Lawson, she claimed that he had accused her of stealing supplies, disrespected her, and hindered her in performing her work. Finally, she contended that before she left work on November 21 (without punching out for lunch), she told Harris that she was not feeling well. At the conclusion of the meeting, Kidder twice asked Respondent if she had any further response to the allegations and what it would take to change things. Respondent refused to respond. Respondent also declined to say if she intended to return to work at her assigned time and perform her duties. Kidder ultimately determined on December 18 that the bullying and harassment complaint was unfounded since it was an isolated incident, but concluded that Respondent's use of the offensive language was a violation of item 14 in Group III, which prohibits the use of improper racial comments. Beside the performance issues, Respondent's behavior at school offended other custodians. According to one co- worker, Respondent made the work environment feel "hostile" and "tense." There was testimony that co-workers had confrontations with Respondent about her work ethic and that Respondent gave a minimal effort to complete tasks. Also, there were nights when co-workers had to help her complete her assignments. Finally, the record shows that Respondent was always complaining about work and how she did not like her job. In short, there was a "bad atmosphere" at school among the custodians. Given the myriad of performance deficiencies, Lawson recommended to Kidder that Respondent be terminated, as her performance had steadily gone "downhill." Harris agreed with this assessment and pointed out that when compared with other custodians, Respondent's job performance was "poor to fair." Notably, the number of complaints about Respondent far exceeded those received for any other custodian. Kidder decided to make a recommendation at the school level to terminate Respondent. Her recommendation was based on Respondent's gross insubordination, a failure to perform assigned tasks, and violations of policy 6.37. This recommendation was supported by the fact that there were numerous emails and documents from teachers and staff outlining Respondent's issues as well as a series of meetings to address the concerns, none of which resulted in an improvement in Respondent's performance. In accordance with school protocol, a pre- determination meeting was held by Kidder on December 10, 2014, for the purpose of allowing Respondent to respond to not only the charges discussed at the December 2 meeting, but all offenses that had occurred since September. Respondent attended the meeting with a union representative. During the meeting, she refused to take responsibility for her actions and offered only excuses. She was argumentative with School staff and her union representative. Based on her lack of remorse and caustic attitude towards supervisors and co-workers, Kidder determined that termination was the appropriate action. On January 7, 2015, the Superintendent recommended that Respondent should be terminated, and pending final action by the School Board, she should be suspended, with pay. After Respondent filed a letter appealing this proposed action, the Superintendent recommended that the School Board suspend Respondent, without pay and benefits, pending an administrative appeal to DOAH. The recommendation was accepted by the School Board and the matter was referred to DOAH. At hearing, Respondent failed to present any credible evidence to rebut the charges or the evidence presented. She simply offered excuses like Lawson was difficult to work with, she was assigned a difficult area to clean due to high use, her co-workers did not help her clean, and she did not get sufficient supplies. While a former custodian testified that she also had problems getting sufficient supplies from Harris, neither spoke directly with Lawson to remedy this situation. Moreover, the evidence shows that Respondent used far more supplies than necessary and far more than other custodians.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Hernando County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment for violating the following offenses in School Board Policy 6.37: items 7 and 13 in Group II and items 1, 4, 12, 14, and 23 in Group III. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Monroe County School Board ("School Board") may terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional food service worker and bus aide based on the results of a five-year level 2 background rescreening, which reflects that Respondent was adjudicated guilty in 1989 of grand theft, a third-degree felony.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Monroe County, Florida. Respondent is a 53-year-old female who was initially hired by the School Board in 2013. At the time of her initial hiring, Respondent was subjected to a criminal background screening. However, the findings of the initial criminal background screening were not presented at hearing. In any event, Respondent was not disqualified based on the initial criminal background screening. Since 2013, Respondent has worked for the School Board as a non-instructional food service worker and bus aide. By all accounts, Respondent has been an exemplary employee throughout her employment with the School Board. Her attendance has been excellent, and on at least one particular occasion, she was named employee of the month at Monroe County High School. However, on July 31, 2018, because Respondent had direct access to children, she underwent a mandatory five-year criminal background rescreening. On August 1, 2018, the School Board sent correspondence to Respondent informing her that her criminal background rescreening had revealed prior arrests. This same correspondence requested that Respondent provide final dispositions of the arrests by August 9, 2018. Respondent provided the School Board with a final court disposition. Of relevance to the instant proceeding is a disposition which reflects that in 1989, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of grand theft, a third-degree felony. On August 22, 2018, the School Board sent Respondent a letter signed by the superintendent, informing her of the School Board's intent to suspend and terminate her employment because of the 1989 felony grand theft conviction. Respondent has not sought an exemption from disqualification pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 8 of its proposed recommended order, the School Board acknowledges that: "While Respondent had not applied for such an exemption at the time of the Final Hearing, it is noted that Respondent may have qualified for such an exemption at the discretion of the School Board." (emphasis added).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Monroe County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent's termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 19th day of December, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District on January 15, 1990, as a Secretary III, Classified. She was assigned as secretary to Margaret Lewis, Director of Vocational Education. Classified employees are distinguished from certified employees who are teachers or administrators who hold teaching certificates. Respondent's duties included typing, handling and filing documents and correspondence, keeping budget and payroll records, copying and receiving incoming phone calls to the Department of Vocational Education. For approximately six months, Respondent and her supervisor had a good working relationship. Both were new to the Brevard County School District, and Margaret Lewis felt that together they could make positive changes in the unit. Respondent's personnel evaluation dated March 15, 1990, rates her in the "exceptional high" range in every category, with the highest possible rating being given in the categories, "work attitude," "cooperativeness," "personal appearance" and "tardiness." Something happened in the summer of 1990 around the time that the unit was moving from its office in Rockledge to the new district building in the Brevard County Governmental Center at Viera. The relationship between the two women rapidly deteriorated, a phenomenon observed by co-workers and the assistant superintendents, including Margaret Lewis' supervisor, Daniel Scheuerer. The circumstances were confusing, even to Jerry Copeland, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services. None could pinpoint the cause of the rift, although both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Lewis offered their own theories. Ms. Cooper described her supervisor arriving at work one morning crying and upset over some domestic situation. She went into Ms. Lewis' office with her and urged her to go home. Ms. Lewis eventually did leave and was gone for several days. Upon her return, Ms. Cooper felt that Ms. Lewis was very cool toward her and began communicating with her through notes or through messages to other staff. Ms. Lewis believes Ms. Cooper's work attitude changed radically after she was passed over for a secretarial position in the School Board attorney's office. On two occasions, Ms. Cooper approached Abraham Collinsworth, the Superintendent, with concerns she had about Margaret Lewis. Mr. Collinsworth referred the matter back to Dr. Scheuerer, Ms. Lewis' supervisor and the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services. Dr. Scheuerer told the superintendent that he had a very disruptive situation with loud conversations and people not feeling good about each other. During the several months period, July through September 1990, Dr. Scheuerer met with the women individually and together. Ms. Cooper complained that Ms. Lewis required her to make too many copies of things, that she communicated with her through yellow stickers, "post-it" notes, and that she, Ms. Lewis, would not tell her where she was going. Dr. Scheuerer counselled Ms. Cooper to adapt to her supervisor's way of doing things and also made suggestions to Ms. Lewis of ways to improve communications, for example, allowing her secretary to keep the calendar. The meeting he had with both women together was very unpleasant. It was obvious that there was a lot of hostility and animosity, tension and stress between the two. Generally, however, Ms. Lewis conducted herself in a professional manner. Ms. Cooper kept a tape recorder that she used to play subliminal tapes. Ms. Lewis felt that she was using the tape recorder to tape their conversations. Ms. Lewis felt that Ms. Cooper spent an inordinate amount of time away from her desk and abused break periods. Ms. Cooper said that she was making deliveries or copying. Ms. Lewis begin writing notes of their confrontations in order to avoid getting emotionally involved. This seemed to inflame Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper's reaction to direction was often either a sullen shrug or a verbal retort. Ms. Cooper felt Ms. Lewis gave her conflicting or serial requests. She also kept notes of their interactions. Early on the morning of October 8, 1990, several employees in the area of Ms. Cooper's and Ms. Lewis' office overheard a verbal confrontation between the two. Ms. Cooper had her voice raised and when Ms. Lewis asked her not to talk so loud, she replied she wanted everyone to hear. It was obvious to Daniel Scheuerer, who also overheard part of the confrontation, that Ms. Cooper was the one doing the yelling. On October 9, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Ms. Cooper the following written reprimand: This is a formal letter of reprimand as a result of your unacceptable behavior on the morning of October 8, 1990. It is being issued as a result of your intentional (you stated that you wanted to be heard by everyone when I asked you to lower your voice) vociferous and disruptive shouting at me in your work area and the disrespect which you displayed toward me as your supervisor after I had made reasonable requests. This type of behavior is unacceptable, disturbing and disruptive to the work effort of the department and the entire area. This is to inform you that any similar outburst of this matter will result in your immediate termination. CC: Personnel File (Petitioner's exhibit No. 5) Sometime around the end of September, or early October, Karen Denbo, the district Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, had a secretarial position open that would have been a lateral transfer (same level, same pay) for Janice Cooper. She applied, and Dr. Scheuerer asked Ms. Denbo to interview Ms. Cooper. Ms. Denbo asked if he was telling her to hire Ms. Cooper. Dr. Scheuerer was given the impression by both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Denbo that they had misgivings about Ms. Cooper performing in a position requiring a lot of technical filings for which there would be no training. Ms. Cooper was not offered the transfer and no other efforts were made to find Ms. Cooper alternative employment. On October 26, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Janice Cooper a memorandum titled "Job Expectations." It informed her that her supervisor had concerns regarding job performance, relationships with other employees, work attitude and failure to follow administrative directives. It directed her to take specified times for break and it stated she must be accurate, careful, effective and courteous. It stated that her performance was not satisfactory and warned that "failure to make necessary adjustments will result in additional disciplinary action." (Petitioner's exhibit No. 6) On November 1, 1990, near the end of the work week, Ms. Lewis needed some coping done and could not find Janice Cooper. She filled out a copy request form and put Ms. Cooper's name as the contact person. Ms. Cooper returned and Ms. Lewis asked if the form was completed properly. Ms. Cooper looked at it and then replied, "It if says what you want it to say, then its alright." After Ms. Lewis returned to her office, Ms. Cooper followed her in and said if she was going to use her name she needed to get her permission first. As Ms. Lewis began writing down Ms. Cooper's comments, Ms. Cooper reached across the desk, knocking off pencils and paper, and tore the paper out of her hand. Ms. Lewis reached for the phone and asked Dr. Scheuerer to come immediately. Ms. Cooper left and did not return until November 5th, after the weekend. In the meantime, Ms. Lewis met with Dr. Scheuerer; the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Jerry Copeland; and the Labor Relations Director, Bob Barrett. Upon Ms. Cooper's return to work, Ms. Lewis called her in to her office. Bob Barrett was also present. She was given this letter: November 5, 1990 Ms. Janice Cooper, Secretary Vocational Education Department Dear Ms. Cooper: This is to inform you that your employment with the School Board of Brevard County is terminated effective immediately, November 5, 1990. The reason for this termination is your unsatisfactory performance. You have been counseled and warned on several occasions regarding the need to improve your performance. On October 26, 1990, you were provided a memorandum which outlined your responsibilities and gave you direction for improving your performance. You were notified that your performance was unsatisfactory and that your failure to make the necessary adjustments would bring additional disciplinary action. Since October 26, 1990, your performance has continued to deteriorate to the point that your unwillingness to make the effort required to function as a Secretary III necessitates this action. Prior to your departure from the work site today, you should turn in any keys or other such School Board material which was issued to you to uses in your job. Sincerely, Margaret Lewis Director, Vocational Education (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) (emphasis in original) When asked if she had anything to say, Ms. Cooper made no response and refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter. She was directed to collect her personal items and to leave the office. With guidance from the State Department of Education, the Brevard County School District has a policy of discipline of all employees which it calls, "NEAT." The acronym stands for the right to "Notice," followed by "Explanation," followed by "Assistance," within a reasonable "Time." If the deficiencies are not corrected at the end of this process, the employee may be terminated. The School Board's adopted rule 6Gx5-7.05, provides in pertinent part: Suspension/Dismissal. A certificated employee may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the work year pursuant to provisions set forth in Florida Statute 230.33(7)(h), 231.36(4)(6) and the Rules of the Educational Practices Commission. A classified employee may be dismissed for cause. The immediate supervisor shall suspend the employee and notify him/her in writing of the recommendation for dismissal, stating the cause. Termination Date. The effective date of any termination of employment or suspension shall be the last day on which the employee works. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) In addition to the above, the School Board's administrative staff acknowledge an employee's right to a pre-termination process that gives her an opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. The record in this proceeding establishes that Janice Cooper was insubordinate on several occasions. She yelled at her supervisor, disrupting the workplace; she refused to follow instructions or was insolent; and finally, she virtually assaulted her supervisor when she grabbed the paper and tore it up. There is little specific evidence, however, of her poor job performance. Her only evaluation during the ten months of her employment was exceptionally positive. The "Job Expectations" memorandum was provided four days before the incident leading to Ms. Cooper's separation, which incident was plainly insubordination or misconduct, but not "poor job performance." The administrative staff make no apparent distinction between "termination" and "suspension" as both are separations from employment; and they do not view Ms. Lewis' letter, therefore, as a violation of the policy described in paragraph 18 above. Practically, there is no distinction, as no separation is final until the Board takes its action. In the meantime, the employee is no longer on the payroll. In Ms. Cooper's case, the time off of the payroll has been two years, most of which time has been the result of circumstances beyond the control of the School Board. Neither before, nor immediately after her termination by Margaret Lewis, was Janice Cooper offered reasonable opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. She was given the letter and asked if she had a response. The letter states that termination is a fait accompli. She did not respond, and was told to leave. No evidence was presented as to the need to take immediate action. Both the district and Ms. Cooper could have benefited from a brief cooling off period; the district, by taking the time to draft a letter reflecting the proper cause for its action; and Ms. Cooper, by having an opportunity to reflect on her employment jeopardy and to prepare a response. The district presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of cause to terminate Ms. Cooper. It did not, however, prove that the cause was "poor performance." For that reason, and because the employee was not offered a reasonable opportunity to respond, the termination procedure was fatally flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Brevard County enter its final order reinstating Janice Cooper to full back pay and benefits from November 9, 1990, until and including October 7, 1992, and approving her termination effective October 7, 1992. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January 1993. MARY CLARK 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 January 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 11. With the exception of the October 26, 1990 memo, the facts proposed here are rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Poor performance was not proven, nor was it proven that Respondent was taping conversations, rather than playing her own "subliminal tapes." Adopted in substance in Paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Moreover, there was some mention of a grievance, but no evidence of what this process was or whether it was actually filed and withdrawn. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to unsatisfactory job performance, which is distinguished, according to the School Board's witness, from "insubordination" or misconduct. (Transcript, p. 70-71) Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Adopted in Paragraph 18. 4-8. Rejected as argument or conclusions, or summary of testimony rather than discrete findings of fact. Some of those arguments and conclusions have been adopted in the conclusions of law herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building E 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 F. Michael Driscoll, Esquire Suite 58 3815 North Highway One Cocoa, Florida 32926 Abraham L. Collinsworth, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940-6699 Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for violation of its School Board Policy File GBEB: Drug-Free Workplace? In particular, should Respondent be disciplined for his conduct that allegedly occurred on or about June 26, 1997, in which the Respondent was said to be in possession of alcohol he was serving to students on school board property?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a school board as defined in Fla. Const. art. IX, Section 4, and Section 230.01, Florida Statutes. At times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as an instructor in the Culinary Arts Department in the St. Augustine Technical Center, a post-secondary vocational center located in St. Johns County, Florida. In particular, Petitioner taught a class entitled Regional Italian Cooking at the school. Respondent was aware of Petitioner's Drug-Free Workplace Policy, as that policy prohibited the use, or possession of alcohol on the property where the St. Augustine Technical Center is located. Respondent was also aware that alcohol could not be used as part of any school activity. Respondent was aware that a violation of these strict prohibitions could subject Respondent to disciplinary sanctions, including discharge from his employment. The exception to the prohibition against the use or possession of alcohol on school property, was that alcohol could be used in preparing food, in contrast to the use of alcoholic beverages for consumption in the ordinary sense. On June 26, 1997, Respondent taught the Regional Italian Cooking class at the St. Augustine Technical Center. On that evening he allowed the brother of one of the class members to bring a bottle of red and a bottle of white wine into the class. Both bottles of wine contained alcohol. The brother was affiliated with the Sans Sebastian Winery, a local winery in St. Augustine. Respondent opened and used some of the red wine in preparing a meat course as part of the class activities. The use of the wine in the preparation of that dish was in keeping with the policy to allow the use of alcoholic beverages in food preparation. Inconsistent with that policy, Respondent placed the remaining contents of the bottle of red wine, and the white wine, on the dinner table where Respondent and class members were dining as part of class activities. Respondent then poured wine that had been brought to the class by the guest from Sans Sebastian Winery. Respondent personally consumed the wine and allowed class members to consume the wine. The class members were persons under twenty-one (21) years of age.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent committed misconduct in office by violating Petitioner's Drug-Free Workplace Policy, and discharging Respondent from his employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Lloyd, Esquire 150 Magnolia Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 David Brooks Kundin, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Clayton Wilcox Director of Personnel St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084-3833 Hugh Balboni Superintendent of Schools St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084-3833
