The Issue Whether the Respondent should be disciplined as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Willie Vance, was employed as a lead custodian at Ponce de Leon Middle School in Dade County, Florida. Over the course of several years, starting as early as 1986, Respondent was counseled regarding the personnel rules and employment requirements for continued employment with the School Board. More specifically, Respondent was advised that absenteeism presented a hardship in the workplace and that he would not be permitted to adversely affect the normal operation of the school. In this regard, Respondent was referred to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program on at least two occasions. In May 1990, Respondent was cited for excessive absenteeism and reminded of the collective bargaining agreement provisions which outline when absences may be grounds for termination. In the years that followed, Respondent continued to have difficulty complying with the regulations regarding absences. He was cited for failing to adhere to the procedures for reporting absences. As lead custodian Respondent was responsible for opening the school at the beginning of each school day. On several occasions, school staff were left to wait for Respondent to arrive to open the school or turn off security alarm systems. Respondent's attendance problem increased and in 1995 he received verbal and written directives regarding his attendance and work performance. By January 1996, Respondent's conduct had not improved. Instead, his continued failure to abide by the directives regarding attendance and work performance led to an incident wherein Respondent used profane and vulgar language and threatened a member of the school staff with bodily harm. These acts occurred in the presence of students and staff members. On February 9, 1996, Respondent was directed to refrain from threatening and/or verbally abusing other staff members. More important, Respondent was advised that continued behavior would result in further disciplinary action. On February 29, 1996, Respondent was absent from work, failed to timely alert school staff that he would not be at work, and, as a result, the school did not open on time. On March 18, 1996, Respondent was absent from work without prior authorization and did not report his absence to school administrators. On March 19, 1996, Respondent failed to sign out on the payroll sheet as all employees had been directed. On March 20, 1996, Respondent failed to report to work without prior authorization from the school principal. On March 26, 1996, Respondent was issued a written warning that his continued failure to perform his assigned duties and repeated indifference to the directives regarding attendance would result in further disciplinary measures. On April 2, 1996, Respondent was advised that continued failure to follow directives would be considered insubordination. On April 11, 1996, Respondent failed to report for work, failed to give notice of his absence, and failed to open the school timely. Since no one knew Respondent would be absent, no administrator could cover for Respondent. As a result, on this date the school mail was not delivered (including employees' paychecks). On April 24, 1996, Respondent was notified that if his performance did not improve by the end of the 1995-96 school year, that a recommendation for disciplinary action would be made to the School Board by the principal. In May 1996, the principal was notified that Respondent had failed to follow through with the Employee Assistance Program's recommendations. Subsequently, Respondent's conduct deteriorated. On May 31, 1996, he made a threat to another staff member; on June 4, 1996, he had a verbal altercation with another custodian; on June 7, 1996, he was absent without prior approval; on July 9, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time; on July 17, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time; on July 22, 1996, he was absent from work without prior authorization; and on July 23, 1996, he was absent and failed to notify school personnel so that, once again, the school failed to open on time. On July 24, 1996, Respondent was issued a written warning again advising him that his continued failure to comply with procedures could not be tolerated. He was advised that his performance was unacceptable, that it was having a detrimental effect on his co-workers, and that continued failure would be considered neglect of duty and gross insubordination. On September 11, 1996, in the presence of students, Respondent was verbally abusive and threatening to an assistant principal. On September 25, 1996, Respondent had another altercation with a co-worker. Respondent threatened the employee by holding a gasoline container and suggesting he would pour gasoline over the worker and light a match. Despite additional warnings and conferences with Respondent, Respondent failed to abide by the directives from school administrators. The directives were reasonable in nature and related to the offensive and inappropriate behavior exhibited by Respondent. Nevertheless, Respondent did not improve. From October 1996 through January 6, 1997, Respondent continued to exhibit an indifference to the directives from school personnel. He continued to fail to report to work and, on January 6, 1997, did not report his absence. On February 5, 1997, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent from his employment with the school district and to initiate dismissal proceedings against him.
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 suspension without pay previously entered, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Willie Vance, pro se 3682 Grand Avenue, No. 3 Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact During the 1991/1992 school year, the Respondent, Patricia Albritton, was teaching in the Pinellas County Public School System under an annual Professional Service Contract, renewable from year to year as determined by the School Board. She was an "itinerant teacher," meaning she had classroom assignments at various schools. Her base school was Azalea Middle School, where she taught a strings orchestra class at 1:30 p.m., and then had a teacher planning period before end of the school day dismissal. On March 18, 1992, shortly after the bell rang for the beginning of the strings class at Azalea Middle School, the Respondent entered the class and, in preparation for the class, requested that the pupils rearrange the chairs in semi-circles to simulate the seating arrangement for an upcoming concert. The class was noisy, and many of the pupils either did not hear or ignored her instructions despite her having raised her voice to get their attention. Frustrated and angry, the Respondent picked up a wooden chair to almost face level and slammed it to the floor. In the process, she lost her grip on the chair, and it slammed to the floor with enough force for one leg of the chair to crack. She then asked the class a question to the effect of, "do I have to do cartwheels to get your attention?" As she turned away from the class, perhaps in response to a pupil's question as to why the class was being required to give a concert performance, the Respondent also mumbled to herself, but in a voice loud enough for some of the pupils to hear: "I'm getting so tired of this damn class." After this incident, the Respondent either set the chair to the side or put it in the adjoining supply room where the Respondent generally stored music stands. One or more of the pupils who tended to be the class troublemakers, or clowns, retrieved the broken chair, and one of them purposely sat on it and appeared to fake falling to the floor. The fall did not appear to be of the kind likely to have injured the pupil in any serious way. Nonetheless, the pupil complained that his head hurt and asked for permission to go to the clinic. The Respondent, who had observed the apparent fakery and knew the propensities of the pupil involved, declined permission, believing it was yet another in a series of ploys to get out of class. She said something to the effect of, "you were stupid to sit on the broken chair." When the pupil persisted in saying his head hurt, the Respondent mocked him, saying words to the effect, "oh, you poor baby." After the incident, the parents of the pupil who tried to fake falling in the broken chair became upset with the Respondent and took their son out of the Respondent's strings class. Two other parents expressed concern, primarily about the Respondent's angry outburst and throwing the chair. Otherwise, there was no evidence that the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was impaired as a result of the incident. She had no difficulties at any of the other schools where she taught. The Respondent has been a teacher in the Pinellas County School System for ten years. Aside from some criticism for being tardy in 1986, the Respondent generally was not seriously criticized for deficiencies in her teaching ability or other aspects of her work in the earlier years of her teaching career. On November 10 and December 4, 1989, the Respondent received written reprimands for poor judgment. The former reprimand included criticism for using inappropriate language loud enough for her pupils to hear her. Her performance evaluation for the 1990/1991 school year included criticism in the areas of judgment and interpersonal relationships with parents and children, and it expressed the need for improvement in those areas. At the beginning of the 1991/1992 school year, the Respondent was put on an annual comprehensive evaluation cycle. An October 23, 1991, appraisal of her instructional performance in a pre-arranged visit to her class by the assistant principal reflected that the Respondent was satisfactory in all areas. In mid-January, 1992, the Respondent grabbed a pupil at Azalea Middle School (the same boy who later faked falling in the broken chair) by the shoulders and shook him to get his attention. As a result, the Respondent's assistant principal cautioned the Respondent to exercise better judgment and, in keeping with School Board policy, to keep her hands off pupils she is reprimanding. A March 5, 1992, appraisal of her performance in non-instructional areas reflected improvement in that her judgment was rated satisfactory. After the March 18, 1992, incident, her rating for management of student conduct again was lowered to "needs improvement."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order that, notwithstanding evidence of poor judgment, as set above, the Respondent, Patricia Albritton, not be suspended for three days without pay. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 4th day of November, 1992.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of a handicap or disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner became employed on an annual non-renewing contract as a paraprofessional at Park Elementary School during the 1993-94 school year. The Petitioner was assigned to work in a classroom program for developmentally disabled preschool children. The children were three to four years of age and very active. There were between five to nine children in the classroom. The Petitioner was generally assigned to work with two children and was responsible for monitoring their activity. She was also responsible for physically controlling the children and changing diapers when required. The substantial part of the workday was spent standing, bending, lifting, and moving about with the children. The Petitioner continued her employment in the 1994-95 school year and received satisfactory evaluations. During the 1995-96 school year, the Petitioner continued her employment as a paraprofessional. Although there is evidence that the Petitioner's job performance was of some concern to the class teacher and to the school principal, the Petitioner was not formally evaluated because her employment was interrupted as set forth herein. There is no evidence that anyone discussed the concerns with her or that she had an opportunity to remedy any alleged deficit in her job performance. On January 2, 1996, the Petitioner was riding in a car being driven by her husband and was involved in an automobile accident when another driver struck the Petitioner's car. The Petitioner was injured in the accident and was taken to a hospital where she was treated and released. Subsequent to the accident, the Petitioner continued to have pain in her neck and sought treatment from a chiropractor. Eventually, the chiropractor referred the Petitioner to a neurologist in an attempt to determine the cause of the pain. The medical professionals determined that the Petitioner's injuries were not permanent. The Petitioner's chiropractor described the pain as a "typical soft tissue injury" and eventually stopped treating the pain because the pain did not improve and was not supported by diagnostic testing. The Petitioner's neurologist opined that the neck pain was not a "disability." The Petitioner returned to the school on February 14, 1996, and discussed her physical limitations with the school principal. She showed the principal a copy of a letter from her chiropractor to an insurer that stated that she was "able to work in a limited capacity . . . with a 15 pound limit" and that "she is to avoid excessive bending, stooping and standing." The Petitioner asserts that the school principal told her to go home and return a week later. The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner informed the Principal that she could do the job but only under the restrictions set forth in the chiropractor's letter. The evidence establishes that the discussion related to whether or not the Petitioner was able to return to work was centered on her ability to perform her responsibilities and that the Petitioner decided she was unable to return to work at that time and would return a week later. By letter dated February 15, 1996, the School Board's personnel coordinator advised the Petitioner that she had used all of her sick leave and would not receive any additional pay until she returned to work. The letter suggested that she request an official leave of absence effective January 2, 1996, in order to permit her retirement benefits to be maintained because "time spent on an official leave of absence can be bought back by the employee from the Division of Retirement." On February 21, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and informed him she would be unable to return on that day due to family matters. On February 22, 1996, the Petitioner returned to the campus and spoke with the principal. The Petitioner told the principal she did not feel physically capable of working as a paraprofessional in the preschool classroom and asked him to provide her with other employment. The principal told the Respondent he did not have any open positions at the school for which she would be physically suited. The principal was also concerned that because the Respondent was physically restricted from bending, stooping, and standing for an extended time, she would not be able to perform the responsibilities of her employment. There is no evidence that on February 22, 1996, or at any time during the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, there were jobs available at the school that did not require physical activity beyond the Petitioner's abilities. On February 26, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and said she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator. The principal believed there was a misunderstanding about the availability of the leave of absence to an annual contract employee and suggested that she speak to the personnel coordinator. The principal also called the coordinator and requested that he clarify the matter with the Petitioner. On February 27, 1996, the personnel coordinator telephoned the school principal and said that the Petitioner had been informed that she was not eligible for a leave of absence and said that the Petitioner had suggested she would resign her employment. On March 1, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the principal and said she wanted to apply for a leave of absence. The principal contacted the personnel coordinator who suggested that the Petitioner submit to the school superintendent a letter requesting the leave along with a copy of the chiropractor's letter and then let the superintendent decide whether or not he would recommend to the school board that her leave request be granted. The information was relayed to the Petitioner, who stated that she would submit the letter. By letter dated March 7, 1996, the Petitioner relayed the events to the superintendent and requested "any consideration you can give in resolving this matter." In the March 7 letter, the Petitioner writes, "[d]ue to the activeness of the children in this class the possibility of re-injuring myself is very high." She also advises that she informed the principal that the personnel coordinator suggested that she request the leave of absence and that the principal suggested that she write the letter to the superintendent. The Petitioner asserted that she would not resign from her position. Attached to the March 7 letter were past evaluations, a March 6 letter "to whom it may concern" from her chiropractor restating the symptoms of her injury, and the February 15 letter she received from the personnel coordinator suggesting the leave of absence. By letter dated March 19, 1996, the Petitioner referenced a March 15 meeting with the superintendent and states "[i]f there are no reasonable accommodations for a job replacement, I would like to request a medical leave of absence for the remainder of this year." She enclosed the letter from the chiropractor with the letter to the superintendent. There appears to have been no response from the superintendent to the Petitioner's request for a leave of absence. By letter dated June 4, 1996, the personnel coordinator responded to the request for leave of absence by stating that because the Petitioner was on an annual contract, the request for a leave of absence could not be granted. The letter also stated that due to a lack of funding, some employees would not be called back to work in the 1996-97 school year, and suggested that she should apply for a future vacant position "when you are again able " According to the leave policy set forth in the school board's employment handbook, any employee may request a leave of absence. Such requests must be made at least seven days prior to the requested leave period except in the case of emergency when the request must be made "as soon as possible." The policy requires that the leave application be made in writing and on the form provided for such requests. The policy provides that the School Board "may grant leave, with or without pay." The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner followed the school system policy in requesting a leave of absence after her accident. The Petitioner did not complete and sign a form requesting a leave of absence. The first written request to the school superintendent for a leave of absence was the letter of March 19, approximately 70 days after the accident. The first time the issue of a leave of absence was verbally addressed by the Petitioner was on February 26, 1996, approximately 50 days after the accident, when she told the school principal that she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator in his letter of February 15. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has a handicap or disability as those terms are defined under applicable statutes and case law. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in any employment decision on the basis of a handicap or disability. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner filed a Request for Disability Accommodation at any time prior to the end of the 1995-96 school year. For the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, a substitute teacher filled in for the Petitioner. The job remained open and available to the Petitioner through the end of the school year. The position was not filled on a permanent basis because school officials were uncertain about whether the Petitioner would be able to return for work. Paraprofessional employees working for the Highlands County School System are employed as annual employees for the first three years. After successful completion of the third year, the paraprofessional becomes eligible for consideration for continuing contract employment. An employee under an annual contract has no automatic right to re-employment. Continuing contract employment provides increased job security to an employee because termination of employment must be for "just cause" or when required by a "reduction in force." Continuing contract employees also receive preference over non-contract employees when workers are recalled after a reduction in force. The successful completion of the third year does not guarantee that the paraprofessional will receive the continuing contract, but only provides that such employee is eligible to receive such a contract The Respondent requires that in order to work a "complete" year, an employee must work for at least 150 days in a school term. Because the Petitioner did not work for at least 150 days in the 1995-96 school term, she did not complete the third year of employment and is not currently eligible for a continuing contract as a paraprofessional employee. The Respondent may permit a paraprofessional employee to work a fourth year, after which the employee automatically receives a continuing contract. Because there were concerns related to the Petitioner's job performance in the 1995-96 school year, the principal of the school would not likely have recommended that a fourth year of employment (and a resulting automatic continuing contract) be permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Mary Ann Kerney. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Katherine B. Heyward, Esquire John K. McClure, P.A. 230 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Mary Ann Florida Kerney 33870 4524 Elm Sebring, Avenue Florida 33870 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wallace Cox, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered terminating respondent's employment with the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 30th day of December, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of willful absence from duty, in violation of Section 1012.67, Florida Statutes; willful neglect of duty, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes; gross insubordination, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes; and incompetence, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as a part-time cafeteria worker at Ludlam Elementary School. Except for the manager, all food workers at the school are part-time employees. The absence of any of these workers, especially without notice on the morning of the nonappearance, places a considerable burden on the other cafeteria workers and jeopardizes the provision of what may be the first meal of the day for many students. By January 24, 2002, Respondent had been absent 16 days, including the four consecutive days preceding Christmas vacation, four of five days in mid-January, and January 22-24, 2002. Responding to this problem, the school principal sent Respondent a memorandum dated January 24 and ordering her to notify the principal of when Respondent intended to return to work and use leave procedures in the future. On the same date, the principal sent another memorandum to Respondent ordering her to communicate directly to the principal when Respondent intended to be absent and document future absences with medical excuses. Respondent signed this memorandum, indicating receipt. On Sunday, January 27, 2002, Respondent telephoned the principal and told her that Respondent would be returning to work the following day. The next day, when Respondent appeared at work, the principal talked to her about Respondent's professional responsibilities and offered to refer her to the Employee Assistance Program for help with a problem with alcohol that Respondent said that she had. Respondent declined the offer and said she would follow the principal's orders. The next day, Respondent arrived to work late. The following day, Respondent did not report to work or call in to notify the school of her absence. The two succeeding days, Respondent did not report to work, but she called the principal to say that she was in the hospital. However, on the last day of the week, Respondent did not report to work and did not call in. On February 11, 2002, the principal conducted a conference-for-the-record (CFR) with Respondent. Respondent said that she had been a recovering alcoholic for 15 years and had been encountering problems with alcohol since October. The principal again offered a referral to the Employee Assistance Program, but Respondent said that she was already in counseling. The principal warned Respondent that further noncompliance with her order would be gross insubordination. On February 19 and 20, 2002, Respondent was again absent and again failed to notify anyone at school of her absence. On the next day, the principal sent another warning memorandum to Respondent. On February 26 and March 11, 2002, Respondent again missed work and again failed to call anyone at the school. Respondent never provided medical documentation for these absences. Also, on March 5 and 8, 2002, Respondent was tardy without calling in to say that she would be late. On March 11, Respondent also failed to attend an appointment that the principal had scheduled for her with the Employee Assistance Program. Respondent told the principal that she would reschedule the appointment, but later failed to appear at this appointment. On September 20, 2002, the district office conducted a CFR. Out of 18 workdays in the new 2002-03 school year, Respondent had already missed four. For the prior school year, Respondent had been absent 47 times and late 11 times. Of the 47 absences, Respondent never called the principal 23 times and never even called the school 11 times. Respondent at first claimed that she had only been absence once that school year, but later admitted to four absences. She then explained that two of the absences were due to a job interview and an accident at the train station. On January 16, 2003, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had suspended her and initiated dismissal proceedings for the reasons set forth above. Petitioner has proved that Respondent is guilty of willful absence from duty without leave by repeated absences without leave and without notification on the day of the absence; willful neglect of duty by repeated absences, repeated failures to advise the school of absences, and repeated failures to provide medical documentation for absences; gross insubordination for the repeated disregard of the principal's order to call in before absences and document absences; and incompetence for the failure to perform her job duties adequately.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Denise Wallace Legal Department The School Board of Miami-Dade County 1452 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carleen Braddy 1884 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33142
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent, Donna Holloway's ("Holloway"), employment with Petitioner, Manatee County School Board (the "School Board"), based upon: Violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), specifically, misconduct in office so serious as to impair the teacher's effectiveness; Violation of School Board Policy 6.2(2)(B)(2) regarding excessive absences; Violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 2B-4.009(4) and policy 6.11 concerning gross insubordination; Violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) concerning a teacher's duty to protect students; Violation of rule 6B-4.009(1)(a) regarding repeated failures to perform duties; and/or Violation of Policies and Procedures for Students with Disabilities, Part II, Section D.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at the School, an elementary school within the Manatee County school system. The School has grades K through 12, including ESE classes at various grade levels. At all times relevant hereto, Holloway was employed at the School, having been hired initially in 2003 (the School's first year of operation) as a media specialist. She was then moved to a third-grade classroom in the 2008-2009 school year. At about the time of the Thanksgiving holiday in 2009, Holloway was transferred to an ESE pre-kindergarten (EPK) class the School had just been assigned by the District office. Holloway was one of the few teachers at the School who was already certified for EPK, so she was a good fit for the position. There were from ten to 15 three-to-five-year-olds in the class initially. Holloway's Performance Issues Holloway was told there were complaints made by other teachers against her while she was working as a media specialist. No specific evidence of those complaints was presented at the final hearing in this matter. Upon her transfer to the third-grade class, her principal, Mr. Holbrook, and then the subsequent principal, Mennes, advised Holloway that some additional complaints had been lodged against her. Again, no evidence as to specific complaints was presented at final hearing. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, specifically just prior to Holloway's transfer to the EPK class, Holloway began to receive written directives and reprimands. In October 2009, Holloway received a written reprimand, including an admonishment about not leaving her classroom during instructional time. Holloway was still teaching her third-grade class at that time. Then, after her transfer to the EPK class, she received a letter of reprimand in December that addressed complaints made by parents about Holloway's propensity to leave her classroom during instructional time. Holloway admits that she would often leave her classroom during the school day. Sometimes she was walking with students to provide a "teachable moment" due to the student's particular needs. Other times she was taking care of business in lieu of a regularly scheduled planning period. Holloway also admits that her absences from the classroom were contrary to the directive given her by the principal. Excessive Absences Holloway was assigned to the EPK class again for the 2010-2011 school year. Almost from the first day of that school year, Holloway began to receive admonishments about her work performance. On October 18, 2010, Holloway was reminded by her principal that she had not worked a full week since the start of the school year. She had missed the Monday and Friday of the first week of school. The absences created problems for the School, especially when a substitute teacher had to be arranged on short notice. When a teacher finds they are going to be absent, it is incumbent upon them to notify their school as early as possible in order for a substitute teacher to be found. There is an automated telephone system (called SUBS) that is supposed to allow a teacher to timely and effectively report their impending absence. Holloway would often experience problems using the SUBS system. When that occurred, she would instead leave telephone messages for various people in the School administrative offices. Many of her phone messages were considered by the principal and others to be sarcastic, rude, or unprofessional; Holloway described the calls as playful or done in a kidding fashion. The School administration and Holloway disagree as to whether Holloway timely arranged for substitutes when she was going to be absent. Holloway expressed frustration that the SUBS system she was supposed to use did not always work. The school staff expressed frustration that Holloway would not always provide adequate notice that she was going to be late or absent, causing problems in finding suitable substitutes. In December 2010, Holloway was again counseled concerning excessive absences during the school year. None of Holloway's absences, however, were unexcused. Holloway recognized the importance of being at school as often as possible for the betterment of her students. However, she experienced a number of health problems that apparently caused her to be absent more frequently than other teachers.1/ Holloway had some health issues and missed numerous days during each of the school years in which she taught at the School. She suffered from and was on medication for anxiety and a depression disorder and also suffered from migraine headaches. The classroom environment exacerbated her depression. For the 2008-2009 school year, Holloway was absent from work 29.6 days, excluding Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) absences, or about 14 percent of the school year. In 2009-2010, Holloway was absent 24.5 days (excluding FMLA), about 12 percent of the school year. The 2010-2011 absences were 22.4 days (excluding FMLA days), about 11 percent of the school year. Holloway was then absent two of the first five working days of the 2011-2012 school year. Despite the large number of absences, none of them were unexcused. Documentation Status and Performance Probation After the winter break of the 2010-2011 school year, Holloway was given a letter saying her performance had been unsatisfactory and that she was being placed on Documentation Status, a program that would include monitoring Holloway's performance in various delineated areas. She was admonished to improve in the areas of classroom management, attendance, organization, and planning. While on Documentation Status, Holloway was advised, via letter from her principal, that she was still not remaining in the classroom with her students. The principal provided Holloway with specific break, lunch, and planning period times, and she was instructed to otherwise remain in the classroom. At about the same time, Holloway's teacher's aide began documenting all the times during the school day that Holloway would be absent from the classroom. Her absences from the classroom continued to be excessive despite the directive from her principal. Holloway was, however, aware that it was important for her to be in the classroom so as to provide consistency and continuity for the students. Holloway's access to a reasonable break period and teacher planning period was an issue throughout her tenure as the EPK teacher. At first Holloway did not have a designated planning period and was expected to do her planning duties during the day as time permitted. Many teachers had planning periods during their students' lunch period, but the special needs children in Holloway's class needed her to be with them at lunch, at least at first. After additional staff was assigned to her room, Holloway was able to leave her students in the care of her paraprofessional aides during the lunch period. Holloway was also offered the option of doing planning during the children's nap time. The nap time lasted approximately two hours, but not all students would be asleep for that entire period. During nap time, the classroom would be dimly lit, and it was important to maintain silence. Those conditions did not allow for an optimal planning period for Holloway. Ultimately, the principal established the definitive time for Holloway to take her break, eat her lunch, and engage in planning. The times were set forth in a written directive issued by the principal on March 3, 2011. Holloway did not particularly approve of the times set forth in the directive and suggested an alternative to the principal, who did not respond.2/ On May 3, 2011, Holloway was placed on Performance Probation. Performance Probation is a program established for the purpose of trying to improve a struggling teacher's performance to stave off the possibility of termination. Holloway was provided with a statement as to various areas of unsatisfactory performance and given until October 7, 2011, i.e., 90 days, to correct her deficient practices. Holloway acknowledged receipt of the Performance Probation document. The areas of unsatisfactory performance identified by the principal were: Planning, Management of Student Conduct, Instructional Organization and Development, Presentation of Subject Matter, Communication, and Employability. Specific issues were listed under each of those areas, and Holloway was given direction as to how she should improve. The Individual Education Plans In addition to the areas of concern listed in the Performance Probation document, Holloway was also struggling to complete Individual Education Plans ("IEPs") for her ESE students. Every ESE student must have an IEP each year, establishing what the student's needs are and how they are going to be addressed by the school. The IEPs are mandated by federal and state law and are an integral part of an ESE's educational program. The IEP is an important factor in determining the amount of funding a school will receive for particular ESE students. The higher the student's needs, as documented in the IEP, the more funds the school will expect to receive. At the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year, Holloway had not completed all the IEPs for her 11 ESE students. She was provided some assistance and guidance by an ESE specialist, but at the end of the school year, her IEPs were not finished. In order to avoid any penalty or sanction, the ESE specialist completed the IEPs for Holloway. When the 2010-2011 school year started, the ESE specialist provided additional assistance to Holloway. In fact, the specialist undertook the scheduling of conferences with the IEP team, the student, and the parents. In late November 2010, Holloway requested that she be allowed to retain the role of planning the conferences and completing the IEPs. The specialist conferred with the principal and Holloway's request was granted. After that, the specialist would do periodic reviews of Holloway's IEP files to make sure they were being done properly and timely. On May 25, 2011, the specialist provided Holloway a letter outlining all items that were missing from her IEPs as the school year was winding down. One of the omissions was a matrix for each student. The matrix is a document that outlines the student's needs and the funding necessary to meet those needs, e.g., use of a speech therapist, assisted listening devices, etc. Holloway told the ESE specialist that she (Holloway) thought matrices only had to be done every three years. The specialist advised Holloway that according to the newly-created policies by the School Board, the matrices had to be done every year, especially if the student was undergoing any changes and particularly if a change of school assignment was involved. The matrices should be updated within two weeks of the implementation or alteration of an IEP. Holloway denies being provided prior notice about the change in the policy relating to matrices. However, she was ultimately made aware of the District policy and that matrices were due for all of her ESE students each year. On June 10, 2011, the date the IEPs were supposed to be complete, the ESE specialist followed up with another letter, thanking Holloway for what she had accomplished thus far, but pointing out a number of items still missing from the IEPs.3/ In addition, the IEP files were not in order, were not secured, and had duplicate pages. Holloway explained the duplicates as being drafts or work in progress. There is no prohibition against having duplicates in the file until the time the final IEP is prepared. Due to the confidential nature of materials in the IEP files, at the end of the school year all the students' files were placed in a secure storage area within the School. Holloway was advised that the files were locked up in storage, so she believed she never had an opportunity to complete the IEPs. However, there is no indication that Holloway ever asked for access to the files so that she could complete the IEPs, nor did she ask her principal for additional time to complete the IEPs.4/ Once the files were placed in storage around June 15, 2011, Holloway did not access them again. The ESE specialist did not complete the IEPs in storage at the end of the 2010-2011 school year as she had completed the prior year's IEPs. She does not know if the IEPs for the 2010-2011 school year were ever completed. She does know that as of June 10, 2011, the day the IEPs were supposed to be finished, there were still a number of outstanding items on six of the students' IEPs. On June 17, 2011, the principal notified Holloway via email that her IEPs and matrices still needed to be completed. Holloway did not comply with that directive. Holloway maintains that she did not have ample time, i.e., a regular planning period, to complete her IEPs. Her testimony in that regard is not credible. According to Holloway, it would take about 45 minutes to complete an IEP, and she ignored other responsibilities while trying to complete the IEPs, but still did not finish them. She was given specific instructions and assistance by the ESE specialist over a period of time, and it seemed that Holloway was working on IEPs throughout the year. Thus, saying she did not have time to complete them is inconsistent with her other testimony. The Check List The day after Holloway was placed on performance probation, May 4, 2011, an end-of-year calendar and end-of-year check list (the "Check List") was distributed to all teachers and other staff. The Check List enumerated all items each teacher must have completed "before the luncheon on June 10th." The Check List included such items as returning textbooks and instructional materials, completing report cards and attaching students' pictures to the cumulative file copies, turning in walkie-talkies and chargers, stacking chairs, removing items from windows, and clearing off desk tops. The Check List also provided all pertinent dates for end-of-school activities and events. On June 11, 2011, Mennes did a walk-through of the School, checking each classroom to make sure the Check List items had been completed. Holloway had not turned in her Check List on June 10, 2011, as ordered; she was the only teacher at the School not to do so. When Mennes went to Holloway's classroom, he found that the room had not been cleaned. Rather, it was in disarray, and there was paper covering the windows with a note saying, "Sorry, not ready for you to see my mess." Holloway had not requested additional time to clean her room, although it is unclear whether Mennes would have granted such a request. Holloway asserts that she did not have time to clean her room and complete the Check List, because she was concentrating on completing the student IEPs that were past due. Those IEPs, however, were not completed either. According to Holloway, she had not completed her IEPs because she did not have an acceptable planning period giving her sufficient time. Holloway's prescribed 40-minute planning period was during the time her students were napping, i.e., for approximately two hours after lunch. Nap time was not instructional time, so it was allowable for Holloway to be out of the room, leaving the students in the care of her aide or aides during that time. A caveat to that arrangement was that one of her students had behavioral problems. According to that student's behavioral intervention plan, there must be two adults in the room when he was sleeping. In approximately February 2011, a second aide was assigned to Holloway's class. When both aides were present, Holloway would have been free to leave the classroom to work on IEPs. However, she said that it was not easy to gather all the materials needed and move to another room when working on IEPs. If she stayed in the room to work on the IEPs in her classroom while the students were sleeping and her aide(s) watched the children, she would not have optimum lighting and it would have to be very quiet. Failure to Protect Students On August 22, 2011, Holloway was in her classroom attending to a student with behavior issues. An aide had taken the other children out to the playground area for recess. After Holloway completed her work with the behavioral student, she sent him out to the playground to join the others. Holloway says she radioed the aide on the walkie-talkie and received a short response indicating the aide understood the child was on the way. Holloway watched the child go up to the gate of the playground area. He stood there for a couple of minutes until Holloway told him to call out to the aide. Once he had done so, Holloway saw the aide's hand on the gate and turned and went back into the classroom. The aide does not remember getting a call on her walkie-talkie from Holloway. She remembers seeing the child and that he called out to her. When she opened the gate for the child, she looked around toward the classroom, but did not see Holloway in the doorway. Holloway would often leave her classroom during instructional times. This occurred so often that one of her aides began documenting all of Holloway's absences from class during the day. Mennes and others observed Holloway "wandering the halls" at times during the school day, sometimes accompanying a student and sometimes not. Holloway explained that she sometimes took students out of the class for a "teaching moment" that may involve outside stimuli. No specific examples were provided. Mennes issued a written directive advising Holloway not to be outside her classroom during instructional times. By her own admission, Holloway did not always follow that directive. Clearly, Holloway did not have a completely satisfactory experience at the School despite having no unsatisfactory evaluations during her tenure. Her tendency to be out of the classroom more frequently than other teachers (and more often than her principal desired), coupled with her personal health issues that resulted in numerous absences, did not place her in good stead with the School administration. Holloway seemed to make some efforts to comply with requirements of her position, but she seemed to fail frequently. Her inability to complete her IEPs, to complete her end-of-year Check List, and to remain in her classroom were unacceptable. Her absences affected the well-being of her students, and her insubordination concerning her principal's directives are "just cause" for the action taken against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, dismissing Respondent, Donna Holloway, from her employment for "just cause," as set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 27th day of March, 2012.
The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Hernando County School Board (Board), the Petitioner, has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment, related to alleged excessive absences, during the 2007-2008 school year.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Board is charged with operating and administering the Hernando County School District. Through its principals and human resources personnel the Board is charged with operating and regulating all personnel matters, including the monitoring of attendance for all employees at each school operated by the Board. Mr. Charles Johnson was the Principal at Westside Elementary School (WES) for the 2007-2008 school year at issue in this case. He had been the principal at that school since 1988 and it was his duty, among other personnel matters, to monitor the attendance of his employees at the school. The Respondent was employed at WES during the 2007-2008 school year. She had been hired to work there for the first time that year. She had, however, been employed by the Board as a teacher since 1997. Prior to the school year in question, the Respondent had a very favorable record as a teacher for the Board. Soon after the Respondent came to work at WES for the 2007-2008 school year she began to exhibit a pattern of frequent absences. The principal, Mr. Johnson, became concerned with Respondent's absences in late September of 2007 because a parent-teacher conference was imminent and report cards or progress reports were due for the first nine-week grading period around that time. The principal maintained a record of the teachers' attendance, including the Respondent. He created a log documenting the Respondent's absences from August 2007 through January 2008. The Respondent was absent five days in August and present for ten days. She was present for ten days and absent for nine days in September. The Respondent was absent on both October 1 and 2, 2007, as well. The Respondent called the principal's secretary on October 2nd to advise that she had a doctor's appointment on the third and would return to work on the fourth. The Respondent did not return to work on October 4th, however. The principal thereupon sent the Respondent a letter advising her that her absences were excessive and she needed to report to work by October 10th. He gave her some lead time in getting back to work because he was unaware of the reasons why she was missing so much work. He also wanted to allow for any delays due to mailing time for his letter, which was mailed on October 4th. The Respondent called the principal and spoke with him on October 8th and advised him that she had been sick and had been "beaten-up." She assured him that she would return to work the next day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work the next day and also failed to come to work on October 10, 2007, as directed in the principal's letter. She did call the school office and leave a voice mail on the principal's phone that morning assuring him that she would be at work the next day, which was October 11th. The Respondent did not return to work on October 11th as promised. Because of her failure to return to work, the principal sent a letter to her dated October 15, 2007, advising her that he had scheduled a "pre-disciplinary hearing" for October 19, 2007, which she should attend. The purpose of that hearing was to give her an opportunity to explain her "excessive absenteeism." The Respondent thereupon was absent from work every day during the week of October 15th, and then failed to attend the scheduled hearing or meeting on October 19th. Moreover, she did not call or otherwise communicate with the principal that week to explain her absences or why she had missed the meeting. Thereafter, the Principal sent the Respondent a letter dated October 23, 2007, again scheduling a pre-disciplinary hearing. The hearing was scheduled for October 30th. The letter was both mailed and personally delivered to the Respondent. Upon receipt of the hand-delivered copy of the letter, the Respondent phoned the principal and spoke to him. According to Mr. Johnson, the Principal, the Respondent told him in this conversation that she had not opened his previous letters, but she assured him she would be at work the following day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work on the following day, which was October 25, 2007, nor did she attend the pre-disciplinary hearing on October 30th, which Mr. Johnson had scheduled. Mr. Johnson, therefore, sent a letter to the Respondent on October 31st advising her that he was recommending to the Superintendent that she be suspended with pay. He sent a letter to the School District office of Labor Relations and Professional Standards on the same day referring the matter to that office, along with copies of all the relevant documents he had which evidenced what be believed were excessive absences. Because of her 10 days or more of consecutive absences, under Board policy, the Respondent was administratively placed on unpaid leave of absence, instead of being suspended with pay as recommended by her principal. The unpaid leave of absence had an effective date of October 15, 2007. Such a leave of absence is designed to enable a principal to replace a teacher in the situation of the Respondent with a permanent certified teacher, to assure continuity of effective instruction. The Respondent was sent instructions regarding her leave of absence by mail on October 15, 2007, from the Human Resources Department of the District. She was thus informed that she could elect to go on extended personal leave or on family medical leave. No information was received from the Respondent in response to this communication, however. The Respondent maintains that she provided a document concerning family medical leave. That form, however, was merely a medical certification statement and not an actual application or request for family medical leave. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Respondent was not qualified for family medical leave, even had a proper application been submitted, because she had not worked a sufficient number of hours in the preceding school year to establish her entitlement to family medical leave under the relevant rules and policies. An employee conference was held with the Respondent on November 2, 2007. The Respondent, the principal, and Ms. Barbara Kidder, who is the Director of Labor Relations and Professional Standards for the School District, were in attendance at the meeting. The Respondent assured them at the meeting that she would return to work the following Monday, November 5th and thereafter maintain satisfactory attendance. She also agreed to seek assistance through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and agreed to advise the school when she had appointments with that program. It was not unusual for Mr. Johnson to have continued the disciplinary process and communication with the Respondent about her absenteeism throughout the month of October, even though she was on a leave of absence. She had been placed on that leave of absence by the District so that it could hire a replacement teacher. It was not a leave she had voluntarily requested. Moreover, even without considering the days of absence while she was on her administrative leave of absence, the principal had a basis for pursuing disciplinary action for the absences she had previously incurred. November 5, 2007, was approved by the District as the Respondent's "early return date" from that leave of absence, which had started on October 15th. Indeed, the Respondent came to work on Monday, November 5th. She was, however, absent for the rest of that week. She did not contact either the principal or his secretary concerning those absences. She called the automated system for assigning substitute teachers (SEMS), which does not constitute nor grant any excuse for an absence. It is merely a means of scheduling or assigning substitute teachers. School did not meet on November 12th, a Monday. On Tuesday, November 13th the Respondent called and left a voice mail message for the principal advising that she had been to the doctor on the Friday before for strep throat and a respiratory infection. She assured him that she would be back the following day November 14, 2007. The Respondent, however, did not report to work on November 14th, but instead called and spoke with the principal around 10:00 a.m., advising him that she just left the doctor's office. She advised him that she had a note indicating she would be clear to report to work on the following Monday. The Principal reminded her that the next week was Thanksgiving week and no school met that week. The Respondent then agreed to come to work on Monday, November 26th and advised that she would have the doctor's note with her at that time. The Respondent failed to report to work on November 26th, as she had promised and did not contact the Principal or his secretary concerning that absence. She also missed work November 27th through the 30th, and did not call the principal or his secretary to explain those absences. The principal accordingly sent her another letter on November 29th advising her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was again scheduled for December 4th to discuss her absences. She did not attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on December 4th nor did she report to work that entire week. She failed to contact the principal or his secretary and explain her absences from work that week and her absence from the scheduled meeting. On December 5, 2007, the principal sent another letter to the Respondent advising her that he was referring her case or situation to the labor relations office. On that same date he sent a memorandum to the director of the labor relations office enclosing all the relevant documentation he had regarding the absences. That office then sent the Respondent a letter on December 5th which advised her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was scheduled for December 12th. The pre-disciplinary meeting was held on December 12th and the Respondent and Ms. Kidder were in attendance. Ms. Kidder gave the Respondent information on the EAP and advised her that she would be reviewing the Respondent's case with the Human Resources Office and the Petitioner's attorney. On December 14th the Respondent met with Ms. Kidder and the principal. The Respondent on this occasion was given a "letter of direction," advising her that she would be assigned a "mentor" and advising her of procedures for absences. The procedures she was directed to follow for absences included a stipulation that a doctor's note would be required for all future absences. The letter of direction given to the Respondent on December 14th contained the following requirements or procedures for the Respondent to follow with regard to her work and her absences: She was be assigned a "mentor" teacher to assist her with transitioning back to work. She was to report to administration each day before reporting to her classroom. She was to meet weekly with administration to review her attendance and her progress. She was expected to be in attendance each day starting Monday, December 17, 2007, and was to follow the Principal's specific directions regarding the process for obtaining approval for sick leave. She was to contact the principal if she had any questions concerning working hours, timesheets, absences, tardiness, sickness at work, leaving the building or related employee issues. She was being placed on probationary status for one year and any future violations of Petitioner's policies or procedures or any administrative directives would constitute "just cause" for disciplinary action up to and including termination. She was expected to contact EAP and attend counseling sessions as recommended by the staff. She was then to document the completed counseling sessions to her principal. During the December 14, 2007, meeting, the Respondent agreed to return to work as directed. She gave no indication that she would be unable to return to work or perform her duties or that there would be any restrictions on her ability to return to work. The Respondent provided no doctor's notes explaining illnesses or absences during either the December 14th meeting or the November 2nd meeting with the Principal. In fact, the Respondent did not return to work the following Monday, December 17th. She also missed the rest of that week and did not contact administration directly about her absences as she had been directed to do on December 14th and as the "letter of instruction" had directed her to do. The Respondent produced phone records at the hearing and testified that certain calls represented conversations with either the Principal or his secretary. This was in an effort to show that she had properly explained her absences. She did not, however, provide corroborating testimony as to which of the calls on the records were specific to a person as opposed to simply leaving a voice mail for that number or receiving no answer at all. In any event, Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent a letter on December 20th reminding her that it was her responsibility to provide a doctor's note in explanation of her absences and that she was supposed to return to work on December 17, 2007. The letter reminded the Respondent that her attendance was critical. The last week of December 2007 and the first week of January 2008, constituted the District's school Christmas Break. The first day of school following Christmas Break was Monday, January 7, 2008. The Respondent did not return to work that day, even though she later presented notes from Doctors Khalil and Alshaar indicating that she was able to work that day. The Respondent did report for work on January 8th, but then was absent for January 9th and 10th. She reported for work on January 11th, but later produced a note from Dr. Alshaar indicating that she should be excused for that day. Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent another letter on January 25, 2008, advising her that a "pre-determination hearing" had been scheduled for February 1, 2008, to again review her absences since January 7, 2008. The Respondent acknowledges that she received the correspondence from the Petitioner referenced above. She was also aware of the Petitioner's polices and procedures on attendance and leaves of absence. She signed a receipt indicating that she had received the Staff Handbook which outlines specific policies and references the School Board Policy Manual in general. Additionally, the Respondent acknowledged to the Principal that "time and attendance" were reviewed during her "new employee orientation" at the school. Teacher absences have a negative impact on the classroom, the students and the school. The principal had to ask other teachers to cover the Respondent's classroom and to use substitutes. A teacher's credibility and the trust of students is impaired when the teacher is constantly absent or alternately appearing or being absent from the classroom on a frequent basis. Mr. Johnson established that the Respondent had the worst attendance record he had experienced with a teacher in his 20 or so years as a principal. Her absences for the 2007-2008 school year far exceeded that of any other teacher at the school. The Collective Bargaining Agreement covering teachers in Hernando County, including the Respondent, provides that sick leave is allowable without loss of pay as provided for by Florida Law and that personal leave should be approved by work site administrators, except in cases of substantial emergency. The Hernando County Staff Handbook is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 24. It provides the details of the Board's policies and procedures on absences, leaves of absence, sick leave and leaves made necessary by sudden emergencies, etc. The general information concerning leaves of absence, the policies and procedures concerning family medical leave, notification of absence, absence without leave, sick leave, depicted in that exhibit are incorporated in these Findings of Fact by reference. Those policies and procedures include the requirement that where there is any doubt as to the validity of a sick leave claim, the superintendent may require the filing of a written certification of illness from a licensed physician or other supporting evidence if personal illness is not involved. It then provides the consequences of false claims for sick leave, proceeding to list cancellation of a teacher's contract or for action seeking revocation of a teaching contract. It also includes a provision that an application for sick leave due to extended illness shall have attached to it a statement from a practicing physician certifying that such leave is essential and indicating the probable duration of the illness and the needed leave. There is no question, given the pattern of extensive absences, and given the Respondent's lack of communication with the principal, or even the principal's secretary, concerning the reason for her absences or the legitimacy of any illness, that the Principal could have doubts as to the validity of any sick leave or illness claims. He was thus proceeding within the appropriate policies contained in the Manual and Handbook in requiring physician certification or proof concerning illness or absences, which mostly was not provided by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Hernando County Florida terminating the Respondent from her position as a teacher with that School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Jennifer M. Gallagher 1223 Sanger Avenue Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Wayne S. Alexander, Ed.D. Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Kimberly Rosario (Respondent), as an employee with the Hernando County School Board (Petitioner or School Board).
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools, grades K through 12, in Hernando County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school- aged children in the county. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat.1/ Rick Markford is the principal at J.D. Floyd K-8 (J.D. Floyd), a school in the Petitioner’s school district. As principal, he has ultimate supervisory authority over all staff members at the school, including custodians. In December 2013, Mr. Markford hired Respondent to serve as a Custodian 1 to work the night shift at J.D. Floyd. Shortly after starting her employment, Respondent’s excessive absenteeism rose to a level where she was taking impermissible leave without pay. As a result, Mr. Markford contacted the School Board’s human resources department for guidance on how to proceed. The School Board has enacted Policy 6.37 to provide the grounds for termination for all educational support and non- certified instructional personnel in its school district. Under Policy 6.37, Group III offenses warrant termination for a first- time violation. Respondent was specifically charged with violating Policy 6.37 Group III offenses “(5) Excessive absenteeism or excessive tardiness” and “(8) Absence from duty without authority, including refusal to report to duty at any time as directed.” Although the Petitioner can proceed directly to termination for a first-time Group III offense, it utilizes a five-step progressive discipline process for excessive absenteeism and absence from duty without authority. The first step is a coaching session with the employee. If the issue continues, the second step is a corrective action plan. The third step is a formal conference with an employee conference report placed in the employee’s file. Step four is a letter of reprimand. And the fifth step is a referral to Human Resources for further action, up to and including termination. In accordance with School Board policy, because of Respondent’s excessive absences, Mr. Markford initiated the five-step process described above. Step 1 occurred on March 7, 2014, when Mr. Markford held a coaching session with Respondent to discuss her absences without pay. She was specifically warned that any further unpaid absences would result in a second meeting and a corrective action plan. On April 17, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to address her excessive absenteeism and issue a corrective action plan in accordance with Step 2. As part of the corrective action plan, Respondent was informed that all future absences for the 2013-14 school year would require a doctor’s note and she would need to directly contact Mr. Markford. Despite the coaching, Respondent’s absences without pay continued, requiring Mr. Markford to initiate Step 3 in a June 23, 2014, meeting with Respondent. The employee conference report reflects that Respondent was absent without pay from May 29, 2014, through June 16, 2014. Petitioner’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, each year. Although Respondent had no entitlement to continued employment beyond June 30, 2014, Mr. Markford decided to reappoint her for the 2014-15 school year to give her a second chance. Because it was a new school year, any further issues with absenteeism would start at Step 1 of the five-step process rather than continuing directly to Step 4. On July 14, 2014, shortly after the start of the new school year, Mr. Markford had to meet with Respondent to initiate Step 1 in the process due to her taking leave without pay on July 2, 3, and 9, 2014. In the corresponding coaching- session note, Respondent was issued a corrective action plan. Respondent’s impermissible absences continued. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to discuss a corrective action plan related to her continued excessive absenteeism, including her absence on July 16, 2014. That same day, Mr. Markford met with Respondent for an Employee Conference Report due to her continued absences without pay, including her absence on July 17, 2014. As reflected in the Employee Conference Report, Respondent was again informed that being in attendance every day was important. Respondent was directed to contact Mr. Markford directly to notify him of any future absences and that she must provide a doctor’s note for such absences. Despite the coaching, Respondent continued to be absent without pay and failed to comply with the corrective action plan. As a result, Mr. Markford issued her a Letter of Reprimand on September 14, 2014. Mr. Markford again explained to Respondent that “[p]unctual and regular attendance is an essential function of [her] job.” In the Letter of Reprimand, which Respondent signed, Respondent was specifically informed that “any further incidents of absenteeism will be considered willful absenteeism and [that Mr. Markford] will recommend that [her] employment with the [School Board] be terminated.” Following the reprimand, Mr. Markford informed the School Board’s human resources office of the issues with Respondent’s excessive absences and identified the disciplinary procedures he had followed. It was only after Respondent had exhibited a clear pattern of absenteeism and had been specifically warned that her continued actions would lead to a recommendation for termination that she filed a complaint against a co-worker alleging harassment. Specifically, on September 26, 2014, Respondent alleged that Christopher Griesbeck, night Custodian 1 at J.D. Floyd, said her “days are numbered here and laughed.” The complaint also referenced an April 2014 incident where Mr. Griesbeck, who was allegedly upset that Respondent was appointed to a day shift instead of him, took her to classrooms she was responsible for and pointed out deficiencies. There was no allegation that the alleged harassment was sexual in nature. Mr. Markford conducted an investigation into the harassment allegations by interviewing Respondent; Vincent Juliano, a Custodian 2 at J.D. Floyd; Mr. Griesbeck; and several Custodian 1s at J.D. Floyd. After completing the investigation, Mr. Markford determined that Respondent’s “complaint of working in a hostile environment is unfounded.” The investigation revealed that, as a result of Respondent’s high absenteeism, there was a degree of resentment and frustration among some of the custodial staff. Mr. Markford took steps to address the issue and developed a plan to limit the interaction between Respondent and Mr. Griesbeck going forward. Mr. Markford met with Respondent to inform her of his findings. On October 17, 2014, Respondent suffered an injury at work when she mis-stepped and twisted her knee, aggravating a pre-existing injury. A workers’ compensation injury report was completed on October 20, 2014, at Mr. Markford’s insistence and Respondent thereafter received treatment. The next day, October 21, 2014, Respondent was cleared to return to work with restrictions for her left knee. Consistent with the restrictions, as well as the restrictions she had over the next couple of months, J.D. Floyd provided her with light-duty work. On December 15, 2014, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work from her workers’ compensation injury with no restrictions. But Respondent was absent without authority on December 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, 2014. The Petitioner’s school district had a vacation break from December 24, 2014, through January 4, 2015. After returning from the break, Respondent’s unauthorized absenteeism continued. On January 6, 2015, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work on January 12, 2015, again with no restrictions. Despite this, Respondent’s high absenteeism and failure to follow the corrective action plan continued. On January 28, 2015, Mr. Markford held a meeting with Respondent because she was absent on January 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2015, without providing a doctor’s note. Mr. Markford explained that he considered Respondent’s actions to be insubordination and the matter would be referred to Human Resources. Respondent’s absences continued. At the time of those continued absences, Respondent would send text messages to Mr. Markford explaining she was not coming to work, and Mr. Markford would respond by informing her that she did not have any leave time and she was required to come to work. She did not comply with the directions. On February 2, 2015, Petitioner’s Director of Human Resources, Dr. Sarah Meaker, wrote a memorandum to the Petitioner’s Equity, Policy, Insurance and Compliance Administrator, Heather Martin, recommending that disciplinary action be imposed against Respondent based on Respondent’s continual absence from work without a doctor’s note. On February 12, 2015, Mr. Markford met with Respondent regarding her continued failure to come to work and non- compliance with the corrective action plan. This was the first workday in February that Respondent showed up to work. Respondent refused to sign any documentation and left work early without authority. On February 13, 2015, Ms. Martin informed Respondent that a pre-determination meeting would be scheduled regarding Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without leave in violation of School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8). Petitioner had difficulty trying to contact Respondent in an effort to move forward with the disciplinary process. In reply to a text message from Mr. Markford informing her to contact Ms. Martin, Respondent responded: “They have my number they can use it.” In preparation for the predetermination meeting, Ms. Martin had a calendar created for the 2014-15 school year which showed the number of days and partial days that Respondent was absent. Specifically, for July 2014, Respondent missed five full days and one partial day; for August 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for September 2014, she missed seven full days and one partial day; for October 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for November 2014, she missed six full days and three partial days; for December 2014, she missed nine full days; for January 2015, she missed 12 full days and five partial days; and for February 2015, through the 18th of that month, she missed 11 full days and one partial day out of the 12 possible work days. The predetermination meeting was held on February 18, 2015. Minutes were kept for the meeting and thereafter transcribed. At the predetermination hearing, Respondent admitted that she was no longer on workers’ compensation because the doctor cleared her as maximum medical improvement (MMI). Respondent offered no valid justification for her excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without authority. Following the meeting, Ms. Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be terminated due to her excessive absenteeism and absence without authority. On February 19, 2015, Petitioner’s Superintendent of schools, Dr. Lori Romano, charged Respondent with violating School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8) based on Respondent “being excessively absent and absent without authority.” Dr. Romano explained there was probable cause for discipline and that she would recommend Respondent’s termination. After Respondent indicated she wished to appeal the recommendation, the matter was transferred to DOAH and an administrative hearing was scheduled. Respondent did not attend the hearing. Respondent did not give advance notice that she would not attend the hearing and she did not explain or provide a reason for her absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent’s employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
