The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Sarasota County School Board (Petitioner) has cause for terminating the employment of Virgil Mae (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver. The Respondent was subject to the provisions for "classified" employees as identified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Petitioner and the "Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association." Under the terms of the CBA, the Petitioner's school bus drivers must comply with various requirements including: possession of a commercial driver's license (CDL) and automobile insurance, passage of an annual health physical, passage of a "reflex" or dexterity test, and completion of in-service training. In May of each year, the Petitioner makes physicians available to provide health physicals for school bus drivers at no charge. In the alternative, the Petitioner pays the insurance co-payment for drivers who choose to obtain physicals from their personal physicians. School board policy requires that the reflex test be conducted within 30 days of the physical. Accordingly, the Petitioner provides reflex testing in May, so that it may be completed in conjunction with physicals. The reflex testing is also at the Petitioner's expense. Prior to May of each year, the Petitioner posts flyers at the school bus compounds to remind bus drivers of the requirements and advise of the dates of the tests. The Transportation Department also broadcasts the information through a radio dispatch system that provides communications links to all drivers. Written notices are also sent to the drivers. Most drivers complete both tests during May, but drivers may complete the tests in their own time. If a driver chooses to obtain a physical through a private physician, the Transportation Department will schedule the reflex test to accommodate the driver's physical, so that both are completed within 30 days. The Respondent asserted that he was unaware of the requirement that the reflex test be conducted within 30 days of the physical, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that he has been a bus driver for the Petitioner since October 2003, that he has complied with the annual requirement in previous years, and that the policy has not changed during the term of his employment. The evidence further establishes that the Respondent had not completed the physical even by the time of the administrative hearing. Each fall, during the week preceding the commencement of school, the Petitioner's Transportation Department conducts a "Safety School," during which the school bus drivers receive in- service training sufficient to meet the relevant requirements applicable to drivers. School bus drivers are paid their regular wages to attend Safety School. On the second day of Safety School, the Petitioner conducts a "bid day," through which drivers bid on routes based on their employment seniority. Under the terms of the CBA, school bus drivers must have the valid CDL and have completed the health physical and in-service training no later than the time of the initial bid. Article XXI, Section M, of the CBA provides as follows: An employee who fails to return to duty for each of the first three work days of a new school year and who fails to notify his/her cost center head of his/her intentions will be considered to have abandoned his/her job and may be terminated. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that he did not return to work because he believed his insurance had lapsed and that his driver's license was suspended and that he was trying to resolve the matter so that he could return to work. He further asserted that he contacted his supervisor and advised him of the matter, by leaving the information with the receptionist who answered the calls. At the hearing, the receptionist acknowledged that the Respondent had called, but stated that he declined to leave a message or a telephone number to which the supervisor could have returned the calls. She testified that according to the "Caller ID" telephone number information, the Respondent was calling from a storage company. The evidence establishes that the Respondent did not appear for the first three work days of the 2008-2009 school year and, in fact, was absent through the first eight days of the school year, extending over a two-week period. The Respondent's explanation for his failure to return to work lacks sufficient credibility and is rejected. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the Respondent failed to obtain the required annual health physical or to complete the in-service training prior to bid day and, accordingly, was not in compliance with the requirements of the CBA. During his employment by the Petitioner, the Respondent has been cited for excessive absences on several occasions. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that the absences were related to health matters. The evidence establishes that the Respondent failed to supply medical documentation for some of the absences, and they were deemed to be "unexcused."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of Virgil Mae. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Virgil Mae 1575 20th Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 Hunter W. Carroll, Esquire Matthews, Eastmoore, Hardy Crauwels & Garcia, P.A. 1777 Main Street, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Mrs. Lori White, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3365 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Pinellas County School Board may terminate the employment of Minnie L. Moody as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Since 1996, Petitioner has employed Respondent, initially in the Food Services Department and then as a "Plant Operator." Beginning on January 3, 2001, Respondent began working for Petitioner in the Transportation Department as a school bus driver. Respondent is represented by a collective bargaining unit of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) with whom Petitioner has entered into an agreement. Petitioner has adopted minimum qualifications an applicant must meet to become employed as a school bus driver. Although the job description has changed over a period of years, at all times material to this case Petitioner's minimum qualifications for employment as a school bus driver required as follows: "graduation from high school, possession of GED, or must obtain a GED within one year of being hired." A "GED" is a "general equivalency diploma" which can be earned by persons completing a prescribed course of study and passing a standard examination. The GED is generally regarded as the equivalent of a high school diploma. At the time Respondent began her employment as a school bus driver, she did not meet the minimum qualifications because she had not graduated from high school, did not possess a GED, and was not within one year of obtaining a GED. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and SEIU, a person not meeting the minimum requirements for employment may work in a position as an "intern" for a period of one year with a salary reduction of ten percent below the applicable minimum. An employee seeking employment as an intern enters into an "internship agreement" with Petitioner. The purpose of the internship mechanism is apparently to permit the employee an opportunity to complete certain job-related requirements within the first year of the employment. In January 2001, Respondent executed a one-year internship agreement with Petitioner. The agreement provided as follows: Internships are limited to one (1) year, however; [sic] in some circumstances, the Director of Personnel Relations, or designee, may grant an extension on a case- by-case basis. In June 2001, Respondent entered into an adult education course to prepare for enrollment in a GED program. Towards the end of 2001, Respondent sought and received an internship extension of three months. Because Respondent was attending educational classes, the request was approved, and Respondent continued bus driving through the end of the 2001-02 school year. In the summer of 2002, Respondent was enrolled in basic adult education classes. In August 2002, Respondent sought an additional internship extension. The request was approved, and Respondent drove a school bus for the 2002-03 school year. In February 2004, Respondent was again enrolled in basic adult education classes, and sought an additional internship extension. The request was again approved, and Respondent drove a school bus for the remainder of the 2003-04 school year. Respondent suffered a family tragedy in April 2004 when her son passed away after a long illness. By letter dated July 30, 2004, Petitioner advised Respondent that her internship would expire on August 21, 2004, and that she needed to complete the GED requirement prior to that date. The letter also provided several options to pursue, including other employment prospects with Petitioner, if the GED was not obtained by the expiration of the agreement. The internship agreement between Petitioner and Respondent expired on August 21, 2004, without Respondent's obtaining the GED. By letter dated September 3, 2004, Petitioner advised Respondent that her employment was suspended for failing to meet the minimum qualifications of the position for which she was employed. Because Respondent's progress toward obtaining the GED has been minimal, Petitioner determined that the internship agreement would not again be extended. Petitioner has no written policy regarding how many times an internship agreement can be extended. The witness testifying at the hearing indicated that in determining whether to grant an internship extension to Respondent, Petitioner considered Respondent's progress towards completion of the academic goals as well as personal factors, including the family illness. Since June 2001, Respondent has worked towards, but has not yet obtained, the GED. In order to obtain a GED a student must complete basic education classes prior to entering into the GED course of study. Respondent has worked to improve her reading ability so as to provide skills sufficient to support entry into the GED program, but her reading skill level has shown no marked improvement, and Respondent has not yet begun the actual GED course of study. There is no evidence that Respondent has not performed her duties as a school bus driver in an acceptable manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a school bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 11th day of March, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly suspended Petitioner's Contract for Transportation of School Children and revoked his license to drive a school bus.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's method of providing transportation for its students is unique in the state of Florida because it contracts annually with independent contractors for each bus route. Pursuant to the contract, independent contractors furnish a bus or busses and are responsible for employing qualified drivers. In order to be qualified, drivers must hold a license issued by Respondent pursuant to Rule 6A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and Petitioner entered into an annual contract for Petitioner to transport school children in Bus #657 for the 1991-1992 school year. At all times material hereto, the parties continued to perform under the terms of the 1991-1992 contract because Respondent was still negotiating the bus contracts for the 1992-1993 school year. Petitioner had been an independent bus contractor for approximately nineteen (19) years. The contract provided no guarantee that Respondent would renew its contract with Petitioner from year to year. At all times material hereto, Petitioner's wife, Eloise J. Lester, was the independent bus contractor for Bus #28. At all times material hereto, Petitioner held a Florida Department of Education school bus license issued by Respondent to operate a school bus. He had been licensed to drive a school bus for Respondent for nineteen (19) years. During that time, he had driven a bus on the Plummer Road route approximately 1,800 times with no reported mishaps. His prior record as a bus driver and bus contractor was unblemished. Respondent uses the Florida School Bus Drivers Handbook, published by the Florida Department of Education, as the curriculum to initially train drivers and for annual in-service training. Respondent gives a copy of this handbook to every driver. On the morning of February 8, 1993, Petitioner was driving his wife's bus #28 with students on board. He approached the railroad crossing at 9520 Plummer Road, stopped, and opened the door. Petitioner saw the Norfolk Southern Railroad train #229 a "good ways" down the track. The railroad crossing signals, flashing lights and bells, were activated indicating that the train was approaching the crossing. The engineer blew the train's whistle. Despite these warnings, Petitioner drove the bus across the tracks in front of the approaching train. The bus cleared the tracks just seconds before the train entered the crossing. The engineer, Jimmy W. Carter, and the conductor, Everett Maine, witnessed the incident and immediately reported the "near miss" to the railroad yard by radio. Later they prepared written incident reports. Norfolk Southern Railroad reported the incident to Respondent. Mr. Carter has been a train engineer for twenty-five (25) years. Mr. Maine has been a train conductor for forty-three (43) years. They were not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident. They were not involved in any conspiracy to harm Petitioner. Ms. Ruby C. Mardis lives near the crossing. She was waiting for the bus in her driveway with her grandchildren on the morning of February 8, 1993. She testified that she did not know where the train was when the bus crossed the tracks. She did not remember hearing any bells or whistles. Petitioner testified that he could see the light of the approaching train before he entered the crossing. He denied that the crossing lights were flashing or that the alarm bells were ringing at that time. However, Petitioner stated that under certain circumstances, even if the crossing signals were activated, he had discretion to cross the tracks, i.e. when there is no train in sight or a train is stopped on the track. The eyewitness testimony of the engineer and the conductor relative to the activated signals and the distance of the train from the crossing at the time Petitioner drove across the tracts is more persuasive than any testimony to the contrary. After completing an investigation, the Director of Transportation, as the designee of the Superintendent made a determination in writing to suspend Petitioner's bus contract and revoke his school bus driver's license effective February 19, 1993. The initial suspension of the contract and revocation of the license was not permanent because both actions were subject to review by Respondent. The Respondent has discretion to enter into a new bus contract with Petitioner and to reinstate Petitioner's school bus license provided he meets the requirements of Rule 6A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code. In March of 1993, Respondent assigned the contract for Route #657 (School Bus #657) to Petitioner's wife at her request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order affirming the suspension of Petitioner's bus contract and revoking his school bus license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of May, 1995. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 17th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX 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. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in paragraph 6 of this Recommended Order. Accepted in paragraphs 2-4 of this Recommended Order. Accept that the testimony of the witnesses is in conflict. However, the testimony of the engineer and conductor is more persuasive than the testimony of the neighbor, the Petitioner, or any other witness. Rejected. The suspension and revocation was subject to review by Respondent and will not become final until the Respondent issues a Final Order in this proceeding. Respondent has discretion to enter into a new contract with Petitioner and to reissue a school bus license. Rejected. Ms. Mardis did not see the bus as it crossed the tracks. The testimony of the engineer and the conductor is more persuasive. Rejected. The testimony of the engineer and the conductor is more persuasive. Rejected. The contract was suspended and the license revoked subject to review by Respondent. Even though the contract does not expressly provide for an appeal to Respondent under the facts and circumstances of this case, the right to review is implicit in the contract. Rejected. Regardless of what was said at staff meetings or in conference with Petitioner, the contract was not suspended and the license not revoked until Petitioner was notified in writing. Even then the adverse decisions were reviewable by Respondent. The contract does not specifically provide Petitioner an opportunity to explain why his contract should not be suspended and his license revoked at the time of the staff conference. The suspension and revocation was subject to review before the Respondent. Moreover, Respondent has provided Petitioner with a due process hearing by referring this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Rejected. Ms. Lester was paid for transporting students in Bus 657 for the balance of the 1992-1993 school year beginning March of 1993. Since that time, Ms. Lester has been paid for transporting children in Bus 657. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.--15. Accepted in paragraphs 1-12 of this Recommended Order. 16.--17. Accepted in paragraphs 1-2 of this Recommended Order. 18.--19. Accepted in paragraph in paragraph 11 of this Recommended Order. Accepted but unnecessary to resolution of case. Accepted but not at issue in this case. 22.--23. Accepted in paragraph 3. 24.--25. Accepted in paragraph 12 of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mullin, Esq. 26 S. 5th St. Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Clay Meux, Esq. Vicki Reynolds, Esq. 600 City Hall 220 E. Bay St. Jackonsville, FL 32202 Dr. Larry Zenke Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32207-8154 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the School Board should terminate or take other disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joe Thomas Alford, Jr., started working for the Bay County School Board in 1980, as a substitute school bus driver. His first full-time position with the School Board was as a "gasoline attendant," a position he assumed in 1981. After Larry Daniels became superintendent of transportation in July of 1985, he granted Mr. Alford's request to be permitted to resume driving a school bus. By all accounts, Mr. Alford did a good job as a full-time bus driver through the end of the school year 1986-87, except for the day he received a speeding ticket while driving a school bus. On another occasion, he exhibited great courage, even heroism, as one of the drivers in a convoy returning from an athletic contest. When the lead bus had an accident that made it impossible for students to get out of the bus in the usual way, Mr. Alford climbed in through a window and kicked out the emergency door, leaking gas tank notwithstanding. 1987-88 On the morning of October 16, 1987, Mr. Alford failed to report for work to drive school bus No. 340 on its three accustomed runs, necessitating the tardy dispatch of another driver. Later, in response to Mr. Daniels' questions, he explained that Harry Wells, a substitute school bus driver, had agreed to drive for him on the morning of the 16th (among other times), with the understanding that Mr. Alford would drive on a field trip for Mr. Wells. It was to an apparent misunderstanding that Mr. Alford attributed his absence without giving notice or arranging for a substitute on October 16, 1987. At the time, school board procedure required a bus driver who was to be absent for any reason to arrange for a substitute, as Mr. Alford apparently thought he had done, and to report the arrangement to the payroll clerk at the office of the superintendent of transportation. But the agreement went unreported, and no approval of the exchange was ever obtained. On October 26, 1987, Mr. Daniels, then superintendent of transportation, and Patricia Holland, route manager for routes including those Mr. Alford drove, Harry Wells and Mr. Alford gathered to discuss the lack of coverage on October 16, 1987. Mr. Alford told everybody present about his plan to drive on a field trip November 6, 1987, which would necessitate his missing the afternoon runs that day. He said (and Mr. Wells was there to deny it, if it had not been true) that Mr. Wells had agreed to substitute for him on the afternoon of November 6, 1987. Eventually this information reached Janet, who logged in Mr. Wells as a substitute for the afternoon runs on November 6, 1987. On the morning of November 6, however, Mr. Alford failed to appear, again without giving notice and without arranging for a substitute. Again it was necessary to make belated arrangements for another driver. Later that morning, Mr. Alford telephoned to report that his wife had locked him out of his house, and that he had lost access to his personal effects. He said that personal problems had prevented his driving that morning, and explained that, without clothes, he would be unable to drive on the field trip that afternoon, as well. In the afternoon, a substitute drove in his stead, without any report of inconvenience to anybody who went on the field trip. On Monday, February 8, 1988, somebody called from Mowat Junior High School with word that school bus No. 340 had not arrived as of quarter past two that afternoon. Ordinarily, and according to schedule, the bus arrived at the school by two o'clock, was loaded by five past, then left Mowat on the first of three runs the bus made each afternoon. When the report that school bus No. 340 had not arrived at Mowat reached the transportation office, Mr. Carter looked in the bus barn out back and saw that the bus was still there. He himself, despite his supervisory position as route manager for the Rutherford district, made two of the three runs for which Mr. Alford was responsible, while another driver drove children home from Hiland Park school. At no time on Monday afternoon did Mr. Alford communicate with the transportation office or with any of his supervisors or with anybody else employed by the school board. When he reported to work on Tuesday morning, he set out in school bus No. 340, without speaking to anybody in the transportation office. His supervisor, Patricia Holland, called Mr. Griffin, the assistant principal in charge of loading and unloading buses at Mowat and asked him to tell Mr. Alford to telephone. Later in the day Mr. Alford did call. He said he had missed work the afternoon before because, coming back from Tyndall Air Force Base, he had had a flat tire. He said he had given a hitchhiker (who he purportedly picked up just before the problem with the tire) 50 cents for a telephone call and asked him to call the school board's transportation office to say he could not get to work. He also said that he was worried about his wife and believed that she had a tumor in her arm. But nobody had telephoned the day before and, for the third time, respondent was orally reprimanded for not reporting for work and failing to give notice beforehand. At a meeting with his supervisors later in February of 1988, Mr. Alford declined to sign a document reciting these three lapses in his attendance record, although assigning the wrong date to one of them. No contemporaneous, independent, written records of counseling on October 16 and November 6 were prepared. On the morning of April 7, 1988, Mr. Tucker of Mosley High School called at half past seven to report that school bus No. 340 was late. As he spoke, it arrived, although it had been due at 6:55 a.m. Unmollified, Mr. Tucker complained that such a late arrival was disruptive because a number of the children ate breakfast at the school and had to be fed, even if they were late. Respondent's supervisors discussed these matters with him that day, and a record was made of the counseling on April 7, 1988. 1988-89 Before students returned for the next school year, all bus drivers hired for the 1988-89 term attended a meeting. In the future, the school bus drivers were told, they should report to the route manager for their district in an emergency or if, for some other reason, they would be unable to appear for work. Rather than making arrangements themselves, they were advised, they should let the route manager contact a substitute. On the morning of October 12, 1988, at quarter of seven, Clarice Rehberg, the route manager for the Bay High School District (which is not the district in which Mr. Alford's route was located) received a telephone call from Mr. Alford, who said that he was in Pensacola, and that his car had broken down. He also told her that school bus No. 340 was in the shop for repair, so that a substitute driver would need another bus. Finally, he let her know that the first scheduled pickup was to have been five minutes earlier at the cemetery on 17th Street. Despite Ms. Rehberg's prompt action, school children on all three runs to Mosley and Hiland Park were late for school that day. At all pertinent times, school bus drivers, including substitutes, were required to make a pre-trip inspection, which sometimes takes fifteen minutes, before driving a school bus in the morning. The following morning at about five o'clock Ms. Rehberg received a second telephone call from Mr. Alford, who again reported that he was calling from Pensacola. He said that he had called Harvey Childress in hopes that Harvey would substitute for him that morning, but that Harvey told him that he was already driving. As the "barn book" reflected, Ms. Rehberg had already scheduled Mr. Childress to drive Mr. Alford's route, morning and afternoon, just as he had done the day before. It was just as well Ms. Rehberg had the foresight to arrange for Mr. Childress to drive that afternoon because Mr. Alford never showed up. On Thursday, October 13, 1988, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Enterkin, who also drove a school bus for the Bay County School Board, spotted Mr. Alford and two friends in a car waiting at a stop sign. During the ensuing conversation, Mr. Alford told Mr. Enterkin that he was taking the rest of the week off. He also said something about having to go to Pensacola because he could not get the lights fixed on his new car. On Thursday afternoon, Mr. Alford telephoned Mr. Conway, the new supervisor of transportation, telling him that he was at a service station in Pensacola waiting for money to be wired to fix his car. On October 14, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Alford called and said that he was ready to go back to work. Mr. Conway asked him to come see him before he reported for any further duties as a bus driver. Missing a three o'clock appointment the following Tuesday, Mr. Alford appeared in Mr. Conway's office at three o'clock on Wednesday, saying that he must have gotten the days mixed up. The conversation between the men was short, to the point, and unpleasant. Mr. Conway suspended Mr. Alford with pay. On October 26, 1988, the school board suspended him without pay. The present proceedings followed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner terminate respondent's employment. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0634 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, it was not clear that he needed approval from anybody other than the substitute at that time. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19 is properly a conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 15, 16, 23, and 26 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 28 through 31, and 32 pertain to immaterial matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact No. 10, 14, 17 through 20, 22, 27, and 33 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence did not show any understanding that Mr. Wells had agreed to take the morning run on November 6, 1987. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, there was no morning route to Perry, and he supposedly stayed with the car. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 the respondent did not give notice he was going to be absent. The hearing officer has not seen a hearing transcript. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the weight of the evidence showed he did not place a call to Ms. Holland on October 12, 1988. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the route was not "covered" on time. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, respondent did not tell Ms. Rehberg in advance that he was not going to report for the afternoon run on October 12, 1989. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 34, the evidence demonstrated knowing, intentional disregard of instructions to let people know of impending absences far enough ahead of time for other arrangements to be made. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 35 is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson Superintendent of Bay County Schools 5205 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32401 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison Sale, Smoak, Harrison, Sale McCloy & Thompson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32401 Pamela L. Cooper Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (NSC) filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been a duly constituted School Board pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2005).1 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been a member of AFSCME and, as such, has been entitled to the benefits of the AFSCME Contract. Since November 15, 2002, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a school bus driver and assigned to the North Regional Transportation Center (NRTC). Until this incident, Respondent had not been disciplined by Petitioner. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Carter was a school bus attendant assigned to the NRTC. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cone was a Field Operations Specialist assigned to the NRTC and had supervisory authority over Ms. Carter and Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sweeting was the Director of Petitioner’s NRTC and had supervisory authority over Ms. Cone. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Moss was a District Director in the Office of Professional Standards and assisted with performance and discipline of employees. She ensured that Petitioner complied with applicable due process requirements during a disciplinary proceeding. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. School Board Rule 6Gx13-E-1.10 incorporates by reference Petitioner’s Handbook for School Bus Drivers, Aides, and Operations Staff (Handbook). Section 3 of the Handbook is captioned “School Bus Driver Guidelines and Procedures.” Section 3.4 of the Handbook, captioned “Duties,” imposes the following duties on a school bus driver: . . . Drivers must report defective equipment to their Dispatch Office in writing on the “Driver’s Request for Repair (DRR)” form. The report must be made as soon as possible after the problem is detected. . . . If the driver encounters a problem while operating the vehicle, the Dispatch Office must be notified immediately and the driver must wait for instructions from the garage. Section 3.3 of the Handbook, captioned “Regulations,” imposes the following responsibilities on a school bus driver: “. . . Prepare immediately an accident report after every accident involving the bus or bus passenger. This report must be completed with the driver’s supervisor. Section 10 of the Handbook is captioned “Operating Procedures and Safe Driving Principles.” Section 10.1 of the Handbook, captioned “School Bus Operation,” provides as follows: Drivers must perform a complete pre-trip inspection of their assigned buses at least twice daily. The pre-trip inspection must be accomplished before the driver departs the compound with the bus. Pre-trip inspection results must be documented on the form provided for this purpose. . . . On August 20, 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive the bus along school bus Route 22. There is a bridge on Northwest 42nd Avenue between Northwest 179 and 183 Streets (the 42nd Avenue Bridge). On August 20, 2004, the 42nd Avenue Bridge was undergoing construction work. There were barricades, construction cones, and other warning devices that were visible to approaching drivers. Because of the construction, the NRTC had informed school bus drivers not to cross the 42nd Avenue Bridge. Respondent testified that he did not hear that warning, but that he knew the bridge was undergoing construction work. On the morning of August 20, 2004, Ms. Carter was the bus attendant on the bus driven by Respondent. At the time of the accident described below, there were four students on the bus. On the morning of August 20, 2004, Respondent drove the bus across the 42nd Avenue Bridge. There was a dispute between the parties as to what, if anything, occurred while Respondent was driving the bus across the 42nd Avenue Bridge. The greater weight of the competent evidence established that the bus collided with an object on the 42nd Avenue Bridge or with the 42nd Avenue Bridge itself. This accident caused minor damage to the bus.2 Respondent did not immediately stop to inspect the bus. After Respondent crossed the 42nd Avenue, he continued on his route, picked up students, and stopped at North Dade Middle School (NDMS) to drop off students. While stopped at NDMS, Respondent inspected the bus and noticed that the outer tire on the right rear of the bus was flat. Respondent testified that the inner tire on the right rear of the bus did not appear to be damaged. Respondent did not contact or make any report to the transportation dispatch office at that time. Respondent drove the bus with the damaged tire to the NRTC bus parking area. Respondent made the determination that it was safe to drive the bus with the damaged tire without consulting anyone.3 After Respondent returned to the NRTC bus compound, he completed a Driver’s Request for Repair (DRR) form, which indicated that the right rear outer tire needed repair. Because of Respondent’s DRR, the bus was taken from the bus parking area to the garage. After Ms. Carter returned to the bus compound with Respondent, she reported to Ms. Cone that the bus had had an accident as it crossed the 42nd Avenue Bridge. The report was in the form of a message left for Ms. Cone on her voicemail. Ms. Cone received Ms. Carter’s message on August 20, 2004, and promptly went to the parking area and then to the garage. She inspected the bus at the garage. Ms. Cone, who has had extensive experience and training in accident investigation, observed that bus’ right rear tire rim was bent and disfigured and that the bus’ door was damaged. After inspecting the bus, Ms. Cone informed Ms. Sweeting of Ms. Carter’s report and of her own observations. Ms. Sweeting and Ms. Cone immediately thereafter went to the 42nd Avenue Bridge, where they observed markings on the bridge that were consistent with a vehicle coming in contact with the bridge. The white stony color of the damaged area of the bridge was consistent with the white stony color Ms. Cone had observed on the damaged tire rim. Although the markings on the bus and on the bridge were consistent with one another, there was no conclusive proof that the markings observed on the bridge were caused by the bus. Ms. Cone took photographs of the bus and the bridge on August 20, 2004. Ms. Cone subsequently delivered the photographs and a report of the accident to Ms. Sweeting. Prior to the final hearing in this matter, Ms. Sweeting was reassigned to the East Regional Transportation Center. When she left the NRTC, Ms. Sweeting left the photographs in a file on her desk. The photographs were subsequently lost or misplaced. Respondent’s qualified representative made a public record’s request for the photographs and was informed that they had been lost.4 A Conference for the Record (CFR) was conducted on August 23, 2004, with Ms. Sweeting presiding. Also present were Respondent and an AFSCME representative. Ms. Sweeting recommended further disciplinary action. A second CFR was conducted October 29, 2004, with Ms. Moss presiding. Also present were Jerry Klein (Petitioner’s Director of Transportation), Ms. Sweeting, two AFSCME representatives, and Respondent. Following the second CFR, Respondent was required to submit to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Thereafter, Petitioner’s staff made the disciplinary recommendation that was subsequently adopted by Petitioner. The photographs taken by Ms. Cone were available for review at both CFRs. The Handbook does not define the term “accident.” School bus drivers employed by Petitioner are required to undergo training when they are first hired. During training, a driver is taught to immediately report to the transportation dispatcher if his or her bus hits an object and damage to the bus results. A driver is taught that such an incident is an accident. Despite that training, Respondent denied that there had been an accident and explained that he defined an accident as being when someone gets hurt on the bus, when he hits or kills someone, or when he damages the property of another. He would not acknowledge that an accident also includes damaging the bus by hitting a bridge or an object on a bridge. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to document pre-trip inspections on August 18, 19 and 20, 2004. Respondent testified that he actually performed the pre-trip inspections, but that he did no documentation because he could not find the pencil he usually kept on the bus after he returned from sick leave. Respondent’s testimony that he completed the pre-trip inspection but failed to complete the required paperwork, although self-serving, was not refuted. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent did not conduct a pre-trip inspection, but it did prove that Respondent failed to complete the pre-trip inspection report.5 The parties agree that Petitioner has the authority to discipline Respondent for just cause consistent with the principles of progressive discipline. Article XI, Section 1A of the AFSCME Contract provides, under the caption “Due Process”, in relevant part, as follows: . . . Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employees [sic] record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); letter of reprimand; suspension/demotion; dismissal. Article XI, Section 1B of the AFSCME Contract provides, in part, as follows: . . . [I]t is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME . . . members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Article XI, Section 4C of the AFSCME Contract provides that termination of employment may occur if a member is guilty of non-performance of job responsibilities. Article XI, Section 3 of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: If those cases where any employee has not complied with Board Policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order and sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment for 30 calendar days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 September, 2005.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Petitioner J. Ruiz School Bus Service, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid for school bus route 4606 and whether Petitioner A. Oliveros Transportation, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid for school bus route 7602.
Findings Of Fact Respondent School Board of Miami-Dade County issued its invitation to bid No. 053-ZZ07 seeking bids from private school bus companies for the School Board's school bus routes for the 1999-2000 school year, renewable for two additional one-year periods by agreement. Bid opening occurred on August 12, 1999. Twenty-one vendors responded to the School Board's invitation to bid. Four bids, including those of Petitioners, were rejected as non-responsive because they failed to include the required UCT-6 form. Petitioner Ruiz submitted the lowest bid for school bus route 4606, and Petitioner Oliveros submitted the lowest bid for school bus route 7602. At the School Board meeting on August 25, 1999, Ruiz' bid and Oliveros' bid were declared non-responsive to the bid specifications for failure to include the UCT-6 form and were rejected. School bus route 4606 was awarded to the next lowest bidder M & M Marroquin School Bus Services, Inc., and school bus route 7602 was awarded to the next lowest bidder Bestway Bus Service, Inc. (hereinafter "Bestway"). Those two vendors had submitted UCT-6 forms with their bids. Petitioners timely filed their notices of protest challenging the School Board's decisions. Rather than stopping the award process, the School Board entered into contracts with M & M and Bestway. The bid specifications contained the following provision under special condition numbered 3: The vendor will be required to submit, with the bid, the most recent copy of their [sic] Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation Employer's Quarterly Report Form UCT 6, showing current employees and payroll amount. In lieu of the June 30, 1999, Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation Employer's Quarterly Report Form UCT 6, a blank copy of the UCT 6 Form is provided and attached hereto for those vendors who do not have the June 30, 1999 quarterly report. This form must be completed in its entirety, with a copy being submitted with the bid and the original retained by the vendor for filing with the state. Failure to submit this report/form will cause the vendor to be considered non-responsive. Effective September 30, 1999, UCT 6 forms will be required to be submitted to Mr. Robert Newell, at the Office of Risk and Benefits Management on a quarterly basis. The UCT 6 form shall reflect all drivers currently certified and on file with the Department of Transportation. Failure to do so shall result in fourteen (14) months loss of route. Special condition numbered 4 provided that the School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive irregularities. Special condition numbered 5 required that a copy of the occupational license be submitted with the bid and further provided that: "The information on the occupational license (name, address, etc.) shall be identical to the information submitted on the Bidder Qualification Form." A number of bidders who were not declared non- responsive submitted occupational licenses and bidder qualification forms where the names on the licenses and forms were reversed, technically a violation of special condition numbered 5. Further, one bidder not declared non-responsive submitted an occupational license in the name of an individual but submitted a bid in the name of a corporation, a violation of that special condition. Another bidder not declared non- responsive submitted a bidder qualification form and an occupational license with different addresses, and one more submitted a bidder qualification form and occupational license with different corporate names. The reasons for requiring vendors to file a UCT-6 form were to verify the vendor's current number of employees, to ascertain if the named employees were certified by the School Board's transportation department, and to determine whether the bidder was in compliance with State of Florida requirements for unemployment compensation and worker's compensation insurance. As to the number of employees, the vendor application forms also contained questions as to the number of employees. The occupational licenses required to be submitted with the bids also advised as to the number of employees. Twelve of the seventeen bidders who were not declared non-responsive submitted conflicting information as to the number of their employees in their vendor applications, their UCT-6 forms, and their occupational licenses. As to the UCT-6 form itself, the bid specifications required submittal of the bidder's most recent form, which would normally be for the quarter ending June 30, 1999. The bid specifications, alternatively, allowed completion of a blank form for a quarter ending subsequent to bid opening and bid award, which forms might not ever be filed with the State or which might be filed with different information on them. The completion of the blank forms would not necessarily verify the information desired by the School Board. One bidder not declared non-responsive submitted a form for the quarter ending March 31, 1999, thereby not appearing to comply with either alternative. Moreover, the bid specifications required the UCT-6 forms to be completed in their entirety. Nine bidders who were not declared non-responsive submitted forms which were not completed in their entirety, missing such information as payroll amounts, dates, account numbers, and the quarter covered by the form. These bidders violated special condition numbered 3. There is no real difference between failing to submit a required form and failing to complete the form as required by the bid specifications. Failure to submit the UCT-6 form was not a material deviation from the bid specifications but rather was a minor irregularity. The School Board waived that minor irregularity by its failure to deem non-responsive those other bidders who had filed the wrong form or who had failed to complete the form. Petitioners' failure to include the UCT-6 form in their bids did not affect the price of their bids, confer upon them an economic advantage over the other bidders, or give the School Board any reason to doubt that Petitioners could perform any contract award. The School Board's acceptance of incomplete UCT-6 forms, a form for an earlier quarter, and forms containing information extending into a future time period, while rejecting Petitioners' bids for not including a form, was arbitrary and capricious. Declaring Petitioners non-responsive but accepting equally non-responsive bids was also clearly erroneous and contrary to competition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Petitioner J. Ruiz School Bus Service, Inc., school bus route 4606 and awarding to Petitioner A. Oliveros Transportation, Inc., school bus route 7602. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 24th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jose I. Valdes, Esquire Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Adler & Newman, P.A. 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33133-3765 Twila Hargrove-Payne, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carlos Garcia, Esquire Niurka R. Piedra, Esquire Garcia, Perez-Siam & Associates 265 Sevilla Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in employment practices in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Euretha L. Davies, is a white female, who was first employed by Respondent, Laidlaw Educational Services (Laidlaw), in 1997 as a school bus driver. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Respondent provides pursuant to contract school bus transportation in Santa Rosa County School District. This includes all aspects of transportation: training drivers, maintaining vehicles, preparing routes and administering the system, and preparing reports to state and federal authorities. Petitioner had been an employee of the Santa Rosa County School District for nine years prior to Laidlaw contracting to provide these services in 1997. She transferred her employment to Laidlaw at that time, maintaining her senority and pay rate. On January 4, 2000, Petitioner contacted Jeffrey R. Capozzi, Driver Development and Safety Supervisor for Laidlaw at their office in Milton, Florida, about pain she was experiencing in both her wrists. She was sent to Immediate Care at West Florida Medical Center, Pensacola, Florida. There, she was seen by Kenneth Hill, M.D., an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Hill performed surgery to release the carpal tunnel in the right wrist on May 23, 2000. On August 24, 2000, a follow-up evaluation of the right had revealed that soft support of the wrist was needed, but Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement with a one percent partial impairment. Petitioner was released to full duties. On May 2001, an annual check up was done in order to maintain Petitioner's entitlement to future workman's compensation medical treatment. This examination was performed by James St. Louis, M.D., who took over Petitioner's case when Dr. Hill moved. Dr. St. Louis ordered nerve conduction studies of the right upper extremity, which was performed on July 30, 2001, by Dr. Gerhard. Dr. Gerhard found that the transmittal of nerve impulses was normal in the right upper extremity and left median nerve. On May 2, 2002, approximately a year later and after Petitioner had had a nerve conduction study, she was sent to see Michael L. Shawbitz, M.D., a neurological specialist. Dr. Shawbitz concluded that she had tendonitis in her right wrist and recommended physical therapy. On May 15, 2002, Petitioner was given a Dexterity Test for School Bus Drivers by Lillian Barnes, which Petitioner passed. On June 5, 2002, Dr. T. F. Brown gave Petitioner a physical, which she passed. On August 6, 2002, Petitioner returned to work when school started, driving a school bus with an automatic door opener. On September 4-6, 2002, Petitioner began training to become a driver trainer. Her instructor was Zeke Zeigler, a training director for Laidlaw. From September 9 through 13, 2002, Petitioner attended classroom training presented by Stephanie Slaton, who was in charge of Driver Safety and Development at the Laidlaw office in Milton, Florida. At this time, Petitioner was driving her bus seven hours and 35 minutes each day on a regular schedule. On September 16 through 20, 2002, Petitioner completed the classroom training and was scheduled to go on the road training with the trainer who fit into her schedule. At this time, Dianne Hall, Head of Routing and Data Entry, requested that Petitioner be taken off her driving schedule to assist in preparation of the report prepared by Laidlaw for the State of Florida on bus schedules and routes for the children in the district. Petitioner was taken off her bus to assist with this report, and when it was completed, she was to continue coming into the office between the morning and afternoon bus routes to keep information in the data system updated and correct. This data entry amounted to several hours of light typing daily. On October 15, 2002, Petitioner was informed that she had an appointment to see Dr. Minoo Hollis, for Petitioner's annual checkup on her workman's compensation injury. This examination was conducted on October 17, 2002. Dr. Hollis determined that Petitioner had tenosynovitis of the right flexor, a ganglion cyst of the left wrist volar ganglion, and diffused chronic pain of the left forearm and wrist. Dr. Hollis prescribed medication and physical therapy for Petitioner and put her on light duty not driving a school bus. On October 23, 2002, Petitioner started physical therapy at Santa Rosa Medical Center three times per week for three weeks. Petitioner continued to work at the school office and to make entries into the computer system. Petitioner was assigned to the school office where she worked on various projects. She did light typing, copied documents for the school staff, and handled mail. There is a conflict in testimony regarding whether these assignments were in pursuit of assisting with the data entry or were the result of light duty because of Dr. Hollis' findings. It is found that at the point Petitioner ceased driving the bus, it was the result of the light duty assignment. These light duties continued until December 10, 2002, when Petitioner was assigned to Pace High School (PHS) where the assistant principal, Bradley Marcilliat, was delegated authority to assign her duties. Upon her assignment to PHS, Petitioner's hours per week were reduced to 30, and her typing was restricted further by her supervisors at Laidlaw. On December 12, 2002, Dr. Hollis did a follow-up examination of Petitioner after physical therapy and found that she had a two percent permanent partial impairment and prescribed the following restrictions as they relate to her bus driving duties: Can sit, stand, and walk without interruption for eight hours; Reach above shoulder level frequently Can use hands for repetitive actions such as: Simple grasping-both hands Pushing and pulling-right hand no; left hand yes Restrictions of activities involving: Unprotected heights-none Moving machinery-none Changes in temperature and humidity-none Driving automotive equipment-none Restrictions to automatic transmission-yes Fumes and gas-none On December 12, 2002, Jennifer Jack, MSN, RN, who was the case manager employed by Genex Services, Inc., for Crawford and Company, Respondent's workman's compensation insurer, reported to Stephanie Slaton that Petitioner could drive a vehicle with automatic transmission per Dr. Hollis. Ms. Jack opined, "I am not sure if driving the bus requires any repetitive pulling, but if it does not, then it looks like Ms. Davies can drive a school bus." A question existed about whether Petitioner could operate the automatic door opener on the school bus, which required the driver to pull a knob with the right hand. Ms. Jack queried Dr. Hollis, and was told Petitioner could drive a bus with an automatic door opener. On December 24, 2002, Crawford and Company informed Petitioner that she would be paid one percent as the difference between the one percent she had initially been paid, and her current permanent impairment of the body as a whole. Petitioner continued her duties at PHS until January 31, 2003. Nothing was said about her returning to her normal bus driving duties, although she had been released by her doctor to return to work with the limitations stated above. On January 31, 2003, Petitioner was advised by personnel at PHS to report to Bobbie Williams' office at Laidlaw at 10:30 that morning. When she reported to Williams, he gave her a dismissal letter, and stated that Laidlaw had been informed by the insurance company that she had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to her injury that had occurred on January 4, 2000, and that with her current restrictions she was no longer able to perform essential requirement necessary to drive a school bus. This determination was based upon the Laidlaw's determination that Petitioner could not operate the automatic door opener on the school bus. This conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented by Petitioner that she had operated the door without problem before she developed the tendonitis, and contrary to Dr. Hollis' reports and the information provided to Ms. Jack by the doctor. Although the record shows that Petitioner continued to improve as revealed in her May 2003 examination, the fact that the doctor indicated that Petitioner had a permanent impairment of two percent in December 2002 indicates that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement as of that date. The facts reveal that Petitioner was ready to return to work; was discharged by Respondent because of an alleged inability to open the door of the bus; that Petitioner was able to open the door of a bus equipped with an automatic door opener; and that the "inability to perform the duties of the job" asserted by Respondent were not supported by the medical restrictions communicated to Respondent's agent, who made that information known to Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter its final order directing that Respondent desist from discriminatory employment practices and directing Respondent to re-employ with appropriate accommodation Petitioner, promote her to a trainer-driver, and cease any further discriminatory practices. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Euretha Davies 3404 Oaktree Lane Pace, Florida 32571 Danny K. Guerdon Laidlaw Education Services 975 Cobb Place Boulevard, Suite 218 Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Pasco County ("Respondent") is an "employer" for purposes of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 ("Act"). At all times material to this case, the Respondent has had a nondiscrimination policy and a policy prohibiting sexual harassment in effect. The policies are provided to all employees, including the Petitioner, upon hiring, and are posted throughout the workplace. Denise E. Hoedt ("Petitioner") at all times material to this case was a bus driver employed by the Respondent. As of the date of the hearing, the Petitioner was on worker's compensation leave. There is no evidence that the worker's compensation leave is related to the allegations at issue in this case. When the Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent she was assigned to a regular bus route and was stationed in the "Northwest Garage" unit of the Respondent's transportation system. After having been employed for a sufficient period of time, she was provided with a contractual right to choose her route. She chose to transport exceptional education (ESE) students. As an ESE driver, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Dennis. Ms. Dennis did not work in the same garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner has been involved in a continuing series of grievances against Mr. Valentine Gallas, a "Route Specialist" for the Respondent. The grievances, filed prior to the complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations at issue in this proceeding, have been directed towards her discontent with work assigned to her by Mr. Gallas. Although Mr. Gallas was not the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, as a Route Specialist located in the Northwest Garage, he had supervisory authority over the Petitioner, as did Joanne Snodgrass, another Route Specialist in the same facility. One of the prior grievances was directed towards his request that she assume responsibility for opening a large metal gate at the entrance of the bus storage compound. The complaint was resolved by an agreement that she would not be asked to open the gate. Upon being requested by a different official to drive a later route and take responsibility to close the gate, the Petitioner complied with the request. Although she did not continue to drive the later route, there is no evidence that her decision was related to the request regarding gate closure. Another grievance centered on Mr. Gallas' directive that she drive a second bus run after she had completed her initial run. Mr. Gallas apparently did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room prior to the second run. The Petitioner filed a grievance about the matter which was resolved by an agreement that, prior to being asked to take an additional route, she would be provided with a rest room break. The Petitioner asserted that because Mr. Gallas assigned her to a bus with a poor driver's seat, her back was injured. There is no credible evidence to establish that the seat caused or contributed to the claimed back injury. The Petitioner suggested that the clock in the bus driver's lounge was tampered with and resulted in her being reprimanded for tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the clock was intentionally tampered with to cause the Petitioner to be reprimanded. There is no evidence that any of the prior disputes between the Petitioner and Mr. Gallas were related to the Petitioner's gender or national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was driving a regular bus route, Mr. Gallas was responsible for her work assignments. When she began to drive an ESE route, she was no longer directly responsible to Mr. Gallas. In January 1993, the Petitioner, via a union representative, contacted school board officials and voiced her dissatisfaction with Mr. Gallas' alleged behavior. Late in January 1993, the Petitioner, accompanied by the union representative, met in an interview with the school board's personnel investigator. At the interview, the Petitioner stated that she believed she had been discriminated against on account of her gender and ethnic origin, and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Mr. Gallas. During the interview, the investigator attempted to obtain allegations of specific conduct, but other than as stated herein, the Petitioner was unable to offer such allegations. Although during the interview, the Petitioner alleged that Mr. Gallas had made derogatory comments regarding her ethnic origin and her weight, the only specific incident of which the Petitioner spoke was Mr. Gallas' alleged remark to her, "Oh, a Cuban." She offered no context for the remark. There was no specific remark regarding weight disclosed during the interview. The Petitioner also alleged that subsequent to Mr. Gallas' purchase of beverages for a group of bus drivers, he had repeatedly said she "owed him one" in a manner which the Petitioner interpreted as sexual. The remark continued until such time as the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas. Further, the Petitioner alleged that in November 1992, Mr. Gallas came into the bus drivers' lounge and handed her an offensive written statement regarding intercourse which she interpreted as a request for sex. The investigator inquired as to whether Mr. Gallas had touched the Petitioner. She replied he had not. There was no mention of any other alleged inappropriate activity by Mr. Gallas towards the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the interview, the investigator expressed her concern about the serious nature of the charges. She assured the Petitioner that there would be no retaliation for the report of the complaints. She noted that the findings of the investigation would be confidential and requested that the Petitioner refrain from discussing the allegations pending the investigation. The investigator began her inquiry the day after meeting with the Petitioner. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Gallas and with other persons who were aware of Mr. Gallas and the operation of the Northwest Garage. As to the investigator's request that the Respondent refrain from discussing the matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with this request. The matter became fodder for discussion in the workplace. A petition was initiated by several employees on Mr. Gallas' behalf. The Petitioner attempted to initiate her own petition drive without success. The matter was viewed by some coworkers as an attempt by the Petitioner to have Mr. Gallas' employment terminated. The investigator for the Respondent viewed the Petitioner's allegations with skepticism due to the "vagueness" of the specifics. The failure of the Petitioner to comply with the request to keep the matter confidential during the investigation did little to alleviate the investigator's initial concerns about the Petitioner's credibility. Despite the continuing controversy, the school board attempted to complete its investigation of the matters about which the Petitioner had complained. In an interview with the investigator, Mr. Gallas denied the charges. He stated that the remark regarding her origin occurred in the context of a discussion between the Petitioner and another driver overheard by Mr. Gallas, at which time the remark was made. He denied making any reference to her weight. Although acknowledging that he had seen the "intercourse" card in the garage, he denied having handed it to her. He denied any sexual intent in the "owe me one" remark. Other interviews were conducted with other persons who are knowledgeable about the operations of the Northwest Garage and Mr. Gallas' employment there. The investigator was unable to substantiate the allegations. Based on a review of the Petitioner's interview and allegations, Mr. Gallas' denial, and the inability to find further substantiation for the complaints, the investigator determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the complaints were credible. After the investigation and determination were completed, there was a time delay in providing notification of the determination to the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that the delay was not an attempt to deprive the Petitioner of any contractual or legal right but was due to nothing more than clerical error on the part of the personnel investigator. There is no evidence that there was any harm to the Petitioner related to the delay. In May 1993, the Petitioner filed the complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) which is at issue in this proceeding. As identified in the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner's allegations are addressed as follows: The November 1992 "intercourse" card incident-- The Petitioner asserts that in November 1992, as she was seated with two other bus drivers in the driver's lounge, Mr. Gallas entered the lounge, walked to the table where the Petitioner and her coworkers sat, and handed a card titled "intercourse" to the Petitioner. The card was an offensive attempt at humor and included a sexual invitation. Of the two coworkers at the table, only one saw the card. The Petitioner refused to permit the other coworker to see the card. All of the women testified at the hearing. Although the Respondent presented the investigator's recollection of Mr. Gallas' denial of the incident, Mr. Gallas was not called by either party to testify at the hearing. The testimony of the two drivers who were at the table when the incident occurred and who testified at the hearing substantiates the Petitioner's allegation. There is no credible evidence that prior to her January 1993 complaint about the incident, the Petitioner discussed the matter with any other person. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' behavior regarding the "intercourse" card incident, although offensive and inappropriate, caused the Petitioner difficulty in performing her job duties or any other harm or injury. Offensive touching of the Petitioner by Mr. Gallas-- The Petitioner asserts that Mr. Gallas occasionally would stand too close to her and that on one occasion, he brushed against her breasts in passing her. There is no evidence that, prior to the filing of the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner had ever complained about unwarranted or offensive touching by Mr. Gallas. Upon direct inquiry by the school board's personnel investigator, the Petitioner denied that she had been touched by Mr. Gallas. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. Mr. Gallas' sexual requests of the Petitioner-- There is no credible evidence that Mr. Gallas made any verbal sexual requests of the Petitioner. The only incident which may be viewed as a sexual invitation relates to the "intercourse" card addressed previously in this Recommended Order. The Petitioner "owed" Mr. Gallas-- The evidence establishes that at a luncheon attended by coworkers, Mr. Gallas purchased beverages for the group and made a statement to the effect that the recipients "owed him one." Mr. Gallas would occasionally repeat his "you owe me one" statement to the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the statement was made in a sexual manner or that such was intended by Mr. Gallas. Eventually, the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas, stating "now I don't owe you one." After being bought a drink, Mr. Gallas no longer made the remark. Verbal slurs about the Petitioner's national origin-- The Petitioner is of Mexican, Spanish and Cuban origin. The Petitioner asserts that on one occasion, she became embroiled in an argument with Mr. Gallas during which he remarked, "Oh, You're nothing but a Cuban." There is no other evidence to support her assertion. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Mr. Gallas made such remarks to other employees or that such conversation was typical of him. The assertion is not credible. Terms and conditions of her employment-- The Petitioner asserts that the "terms and conditions' of her employment were different from other bus drivers with responsibilities similar to hers. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Drivers transporting ESE students generally have fewer students to transport than drivers of regular routes. It is possible that an ESE driver may transport only one or two children. ESE drivers often complete their routes before drivers of regular routes. Because the Petitioner was responsible for transportation of ESE students, her route was often completed earlier than other bus drivers. ESE drivers who have completed their routes may "stay on the clock" in which case they may be asked to provide assistance in clerical tasks or to complete other bus routes. In the alternative, drivers may "punch out" and leave. Additional work is assigned to drivers by the Route Specialist in the garage from which the drivers are based. Mr. Gallas was the Route Specialist in the garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner frequently remained on the clock and was accordingly assigned additional work to do. There is no evidence that any drivers who remained "on the clock" were treated any differently that was the Petitioner. On one afternoon, the Petitioner, suffering from back pain, returned from her route and laid down in her bus. Mr. Gallas came onto the vehicle and told her that she needed to be working. He suggested that she could be made to sweep the bus compound if she did not find other duties to complete. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner, who was on the payroll at the time she was resting in her bus, informed Mr. Gallas that she was not feeling well. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' actions upon discovering the Petitioner at rest in her bus were related to her gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. There is no evidence that other drivers were permitted, while on duty, to rest in their busses. As previously addressed, on one occasion, Mr. Gallas directed the Petitioner, immediately upon her return from her normal bus run, to perform additional transportation duties. Mr. Gallas did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room before beginning her second run. Subsequent to her complaint to appropriate authorities, Mr. Gallas was directed to permit the Petitioner to use the rest room before assigning additional responsibilities to her. Although Mr. Gallas' lack of concern about the Petitioner's personal needs was inconsiderate, the evidence fails to establish that the incident was related to gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. The Petitioner also asserts that other drivers or their spouses are permitted to bring personal vehicles into the bus compound and that she was not. The evidence fails to establish that other drivers or their spouses are routinely permitted to bring personal vehicles into the compound. The Petitioner complained that during a heavy storm one day, her husband came into the compound to pick her up and was asked to take his vehicle back outside the compound. On that day, Mr. Gallas offered to walk the Petitioner with an umbrella to her car but she declined. The Respondent's inquiry into the January 1993 grievance-- The Petitioner asserts that the school board's inquiry into her January 1993 grievance was incomplete and that the determination that the grievance was unfounded was inappropriate. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's complaints, as they were communicated to the school board, were as fully investigated as was possible. The Petitioner's complaints to the Board did not include allegations related to unwarranted touching, according such allegations were not investigated. Further, the investigation was hampered by the spread of rumor and innuendo throughout the workplace regarding the Petitioner's sexual harassment allegations. Although the evidence is not entirely clear as to where responsibility lies for the generation of the rumor and internal bickering, school board personnel involved in the investigation specifically directed the Petitioner to refrain from discussing the allegations pending the board's investigation. As previously stated, she failed to comply with this request. Coworkers of the Petitioner were also involved in discussion about the pending investigation. At that point, the workplace appears to have become divided into factions and the board's investigation was compromised. The evidence establishes that the board's investigation of the Petitioner's grievance was conducted appropriately and that persons with direct knowledge related to the allegations (including Mr. Gallas who was inexplicably not called by either party to testify at the hearing) were contacted and interviewed. Although the investigation became compromised and was completed prematurely, there is no evidence that based on the information obtained by board personnel, the board's determination that the grievance was unfounded was outside the authority of the board or unsupported by the information which the board had obtained The Petitioner seeks to be "reimbursed for all the pain and suffering I have endured...." The evidence fails to establish that such an award is appropriate. The Petitioner offered no evidence related to "pain and suffering" or which would establish that such injury, if present, is related to employment conditions. The Petitioner also seeks to be reimbursed "for any and all money which was used to seek legal consultation." There is no evidence that the Petitioner, who has represented herself throughout this proceeding, has incurred any expenses related to legal consultation regarding this complaint; therefore such an award is not appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed in this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th of June, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6652 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Proposed finding of fact paragraph six continues for approximately seven pages and consists largely of recitation of conflicting testimony. The testimony has been reconciled as indicated in this Recommended Order. The proposed finding is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, immaterial and not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 8-9. Rejected, subordinate. 10-16. Rejected, unnecessary. This unnumbered proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior" by Mr. Gallas and is treated as follows: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive testimony: a. Rejected as irrelevant: c, b, e. Rejected as immaterial: d, f, g, h. This proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Mr. Valentine Gallas and Ms. Denise Hoedt" and is treated as follows: Rejected, there is no credible evidence that the offer of an umbrella was "inappropriate sexual behavior b, k. Rejected, immaterial l, m, n, o. Accepted as modified. Remainder is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence: a, g. Rejected, subordinate: d, h, i. Rejected, irrelevant: f. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner or her husband have been subjected to restrictions regarding personal cars within the bus compound which are not generally applicable to all drivers, except when specific circumstances require otherwise. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected as to Pyles' attendance at meeting, unnecessary. Rejected as to note taking by the investigator, unnecessary. 12-13. Rejected, unnecessary. 16-18. Rejected, subordinate. 23-33. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. 34. Rejected as to ulterior motives of Petitioner, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Weightman, Superintendent Pasco County School System 7227 Land O' Lakes Blvd. Land O' Lakes, Florida 34639-2805 Denise E. Hoedt 11605 U. S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Mark Graves, Esquire 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
The Issue Whether the School District of Palm Beach County properly suspended Respondent for 15 days and, subsequently, terminated his employment for an incident at the bus facility compound on December 12, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Stipulated Facts Respondent was hired by the School District of Palm Beach County (“District”) on March 9, 2007. At all times relevant to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a School Bus Driver I at the Royal Palm Beach Transportation Facility (“Royal Palm Facility”) with the District. Employee and Labor Relations commenced an investigation on September 9, 2019, that was assigned Case No. 19/20-026. On October 29, 2019, Respondent was notified that the superintendent intended to recommend a 15-day suspension without pay and termination of Respondent’s employment to the Palm Beach County School Board (“School Board”) at the November 20, 2019, School Board meeting. On December 18, 2019, Respondent requested a hearing at DOAH regarding the suspension and termination of his employment. 1 Instead of recapping or summarizing the relevant and material testimony of witnesses, one of the parties submitted a Proposed Recommended Order with Findings of Fact that included and recited significant provisions of the hearing Transcript verbatim. This was not helpful and is contrary to the custom and practice at DOAH. This practice is discouraged in the future. Facts Presented At The Hearing The School Board operates, controls, and supervises the District, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was an experienced bus driver who had been trained in the proper method of interacting with supervisors, co-workers, and students, and exercising good professional judgment, and knew to follow certain rules, policies and directives. Respondent’s employment was governed by: a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the District and Service Employees International Union/Florida Public Services Union (“SEIU/FPSU”)(SB Ex. 77; Resp’t Ex. 11); School Board Policies (SB Exs. 70-74); Florida law (SB Ex. 75); and the School Bus Operators and Bus-Attendant Handbook (SB Ex. 76). Respondent was notified that he was being recommended for termination due to insubordination, ethical misconduct, and failure to follow policies, rules, or directives when he screamed and yelled at Senior Transportation Coordinator Cynthia Holloman (“Holloman”); used profanity, impolite language, and derogatory terms directed at Holloman which were heard by other employees as well; and left a school bus unattended in the middle of the bus driveway. SB Ex. 1; SB Ex. 4 at p. SB000022-35; and Pet’r Admin. Compl. Holloman testified at the hearing and her deposition transcript was filed. She was the senior coordinator at the Royal Palm Facility on December 12, 2018. However, the assignment of buses to the drivers was primarily handled by another employee, Bonnie Smith (“Smith”). As background, Holloman outlined that bus drivers would report to the facility in the morning to pick up their bus. If the driver’s regularly assigned bus was down or inoperative, the bus driver would be reassigned and take a substitute bus. The bus drivers were required to perform a pre-trip inspection each day to look for issues with their assigned bus. The pre-trip inspection would include, among other things, the drivers starting up their assigned bus. If the driver discovered an issue with the bus, the driver was required to fill out a form, bring it inside, and a mechanic would be assigned to fix the problem. If the problem could not be corrected, the driver would be assigned another bus. If another bus was not available, then Petitioner’s staff would assign an available driver a “double route” to cover the route. If a mechanic determined the bus was not safe to operate, then a bus would not be put on the road. Respondent testified that the morning of December 12, 2018, was an unusually cold morning. He had been assigned a bus that he believed did not have a working heater. His indirect concern with the heat not working was that the defroster linked to it would not function properly, creating a potential safety risk for the bus driver and the passengers. That morning, Respondent reported the problem with his assigned bus to Smith, and told her that he would not drive the bus in that condition. Marvin Jackson (“Jackson”), a bus driver at the Royal Palm Facility, also had a problem with the heater not functioning in his bus. Jackson testified that he would carry a rag or paper towels to wipe the windshield when driving. He took this action to operate his bus safely. Jackson indicated that on the morning of December 12, 2018, he also went into the office to complain about his heat not working properly. Leatrice Burroughs (“Burroughs”), another bus driver, testified that she also went to see Holloman on the morning of December 12, 2018, to complain about the heater on her bus not working properly. Holloman was in the dispatch office with Burroughs. Holloman was attempting to locate a bus with a functioning heater for Burroughs when Respondent arrived at the dispatch office. Holloman acknowledged that if the bus defroster was not working and the front windshield was fogging up, it would create a dangerous condition for the bus drivers. When Holloman was inside with Burroughs, Holloman heard Respondent outside raising his voice and cursing at Smith. Holloman agreed that Burroughs was in position where she could have heard Respondent using any profane or inappropriate language outside. Holloman heard Respondent cursing at Smith telling her he would not drive the bus without heat. Burroughs testified that she did not hear Respondent swearing or using any profanity. Holloman then spoke directly with Respondent and explained to him that there were no buses with heat available for him. He angrily responded and told her she was “full of sh_t,” in front of Burroughs. Burroughs denied hearing Respondent say that.2 Holloman related that during this same conversation Respondent, told her to “go f_ck herself” and that she instructed him to punch out and go home. Holloman also stated that Respondent called her a “b_tch,” and said he would park his bus and “sit on the clock.” When Holloman asked him if he was refusing to do his route that morning he replied “I’m not gonna do my route. I’m gonna sit here and I’m gonna get paid for it.” She responded that she was not going to pay him if there was work available and he was not willing to do the work. In response, Respondent told her “to go f_ck herself.” Notably, during this encounter with Holloman, Respondent made no mention or complaint to her about any problem with the defroster, nor did he claim that the bus was unsafe to drive. 2 It was not clear from the evidence what Burroughs’s proximity was to Holloman and Respondent during this discussion. Gary Mosley (“Mosley”), one of Holloman’s supervisors, arrived at the bus facility at some point after the heated exchange began. Respondent came back into the office. Holloman claims that, in the presence of Mosley, Respondent swore at her, at which time she stood up from her desk and told him she was not afraid of him. Mosley testified. He did not recall Louis swearing at Holloman, while he was in the office. However, when he spoke with Respondent outside, Respondent admitted that he said “f_ck you” to Holloman before Mosley arrived. Holloman also stated that Jackson was sitting in a chair right outside her office and could hear everything being said, including Respondent using profanity with her. Jackson testified that he never heard Respondent use any profanity that day. Jeanette Williams, a fellow bus driver, testified that she heard Respondent say he would not drive that “piece of sh_ t” bus. Pet’r Ex. 23. Dorinda Patterson (“Patterson”), another bus driver, provided a written statement for these proceedings. Patterson said that when Respondent left the office area she heard him say he was “not driving that piece of sh_t bus,” because it was “too f_cking cold.” Casandra Joseph (“Joseph”), who was a union steward, testified. She was contacted soon after the incident by Holloman regarding Respondent’s conduct on the morning of December 12, 2018. She was already at the Royal Palm Facility that morning. She spoke to Respondent immediately after the incident. He seemed very upset, was raising his voice, yelling and cursing, and used the word “sh_t.” However, Joseph did not hear what Respondent had said to Holloman earlier. Jose Pacheco (“Pacheco”), the bus shop foreman at the facility, testified. He was responsible for maintenance of the school buses. He testified that bus drivers are supposed to conduct pre- and post-trip inspections of their buses. If a bus driver has an issue during the pre-trip inspection they are required to contact dispatch, and dispatch will contact maintenance to see if they can resolve the matter. If maintenance cannot resolve the matter, they refer the bus driver back to dispatch. Pacheco was present on December 12, 2018, when Respondent complained about the heat not working on his bus. Pacheco testified clearly and distinctly that Respondent was yelling and using profanity. Respondent drove his bus in an area of the bus driveway and left it there, obstructing other bus traffic. His testimony was consistent with the testimony of other employees and was uncontroverted. The undersigned found his recollection of the incident to be particularly unbiased, credible, and persuasive. Of significance, Louis never mentioned to Pacheco that he would not drive his bus because the bus windows would fog up making the bus unsafe. Rather, it was Pacheco’s opinion that Louis was upset because it was too cold and his bus heater did not work properly. Smith, a transportation coordinator, also testified. Smith’s responsibilities included helping bus drivers get their buses on the road, helping with directions, and assisting bus drivers with their paperwork. Smith was assigned to the Royal Palm Facility. Prior to becoming a transportation coordinator, she was a bus driver. Smith testified that on December 12, 2018, she witnessed Respondent screaming at Holloman, stating that he did not want to drive his assigned bus because it was too cold. She overheard Holloman advise Respondent that if he was not going to drive his assigned bus, then he would need to clock out. Smith testified that during his heated exchange with Holloman, Respondent said “he was not driving a f_ cking cold bus.” And then he told her to go and “f_ck herself.” She related that Respondent then said that the administration did not know “how to treat the f_ cking drivers” and that is why he was acting the way he was acting. Because Respondent refused to drive the cold bus, Smith was asked to cover Respondent’s route. However, Respondent never gave Smith any paperwork to document or support his alleged concern with the heater or defroster. Carol Bello, a bus driver assigned to the Royal Palm Facility, also testified. Although she was not certain about the date, she recalled an incident approximately two years ago. Respondent was upset, loud, verbally abusive, and calling people names. She specifically recalled him stating, “F_ck you guys, I’m not driving that piece of sh_t.” She also saw him point his finger at Smith and call her “a bitch,” while ranting and raving in the bus compound around other workers and supervisors. She acknowledged that while some occasional profanity was used by bus drivers while clowning around, people did not talk to their supervisors like that. Joseph, another bus driver, testified that she had been a bus driver for fourteen years. On December 12, 2018, she observed Respondent come out of the office yelling and cursing at Holloman in the dispatch office. Respondent went on and on, cursing at Holloman and being very disrespectful to her. Respondent, Bernard Jean Louis, testified. While he admitted that he was upset that day, he essentially denied all allegations that he cursed at Holloman, or that he refused to follow his supervisor’s instruction. The undersigned did not find this self-serving testimony to be credible or persuasive, particularly considering the contrary and distinct recollection of events by several other trustworthy and more credible witnesses. The undersigned finds that Respondent’s profanity-laced tirade went on for some time and was done in different areas of the dispatch office and the outside areas of the bus compound. It is not surprising that some employees heard parts of Respondent’s outburst, while other employees heard other parts. Nonetheless, what clearly and convincingly emerged from the incident on December 12, 2018, is that Respondent was extremely upset because it was cold and he felt that the heater in his bus did not work properly. As a result of his uncontrollable and growing anger and frustration, he resorted to yelling, arguing, and cursing at his supervisor, Holloman, and failed to follow her directions. The undersigned credits and accepts the testimony of several witnesses on these points. Upon questions from the undersigned to clarify his testimony, Respondent admitted that he had not actually tested or inspected his assigned bus that morning before confronting Holloman about the problem. Rather, he concluded that his bus had an inoperable heater based on how this same bus had operated in the past. While there was a good deal of evidence relating to questions about a drug test taken by Respondent and second-hand evidence regarding the investigative role of other school board employees, this evidence was not particularly useful or relevant in this case.3 Despite no objection by either party to this broad array of other less relevant evidence, the issues in this case are framed and limited to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, to wit: whether Respondent’s conduct or behavior on December 12, 2018, at the bus facility violated the law or school board rules or policies. Christian v. Dep’t of Health, Bd. of Chiropractic Med., 161 So. 3d. 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) and cases cited therein. 3 More directly, the School Board abandoned and did not pursue the drug test as a basis for the termination. Respondent acknowledged this in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. See Joint Pre-Hr’g Stip, § B., p. 2. To the extent other issues need to be resolved, the undersigned finds that the matter is properly before DOAH. Further, there was no persuasive evidence presented to prove that Petitioner failed to exhaust any administrative remedies, violated Respondent’s due process, or that Respondent failed to receive proper or sufficient notice of the conduct being relied upon by the School Board for his proposed suspension or termination. See generally, Fla. Bd. of Massage v. Thrall, 164 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent without pay and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire V. Danielle Williams, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles D. Thomas, Esquire Thompson & Thomas, PA 1801 Indian Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue Whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of Petitioner, should be dismissed on charges that he made unwelcome and offensive sexual advances toward several female employees over whom he had authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dan Quinn, has been employed by the School Board for 16 years. From July 1981 until November 1985 (when he was charged with misconduct and suspended from duty), he was employed as a driver trainer. In that position he not only trained school bus drivers, but assigned them school field trips for which they received extra pay. His other job duties included assisting the Supervisor of Transportation in coordinating bus routes and communicating with bus drivers assisting bus drivers with disciplinary problems on buses and riding buses when necessary: assisting mechanics in maintaining service and gas records in gassing buses, obtaining parts, and taking buses to inspection stations: serving as a substitute bus driver when necessary: and "other duties as assigned by the Supervisor of Transportation." (Resp. Exh. 5) The job of bus driver trainer is a non-instructional position. Respondent did not have a written employment contract with the School Board. II. The School Board has adopted Rules 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, internal rules not published in the Florida Administrative Code; which provide grounds and procedures for suspending and dismissing non-instructional school employees: Suspension Procedure The Superintendent has the authority to suspend non-instructional school employees for emergency reasons, and shall notify the Board immediately of such suspension. The suspension shall be reviewed by the Board at its regular or special meeting, at which time the employee shall be restored to duty or the Superintendent shall be authorized to serve noticed on the employee of charges against him and the date and place of hearing before the Board; at which all parties shall be heard on all matters relevant to the suspension and the employee's continued employment. Upon conclusion of the hearing; the Board shall restore the employee to duty, dismiss the employee; or otherwise adopt the recommendations of the Superintendent. For the purpose of this rule the term "emergency" includes, but is not necessarily limited to; any situation arising from the conduct of any Board employee for which the Board may find cause to dismiss the employee, such as immorality, intoxication while on duty, gross insubordination; willful neglect of duty, assaults upon other persons, incompetency, unjustified interruption of the orderly conduct of a school or any school activity, conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude or other misconduct. * * * Dismissal of Employees Dismissal of non-instructional personnel from employment by the Board shall be as follows: * * * If the quality of the employee's work is unsatisfactory and unacceptable, the Superintendent may recommend dismissal of the employee. (Petitioner's Exh.2) III. J.F. has been a bus driver employed by the School Board since 1970. At approximately 6:15 a.m. on one morning in January or February 1983, while she was sweeping her school bus before leaving on her route, Respondent entered the bus and passed her in the aisle. After she was seated in the driver's seat, he approached her and, while standing to her right (in the bus aisle), put his left arm behind her neck and around her left shoulder and placed his hand on the side of her breast. He then tried to kiss her on the right cheek. She told him to "knock it off," and "get off the bus." He complied but, while stepping off the bus, told her that, "If you're not good to me, I don't have to give you all these field trips," referring to the lucrative field trips which he assigned to bus drivers. She was embarrassed and offended, but did not report the incident for fear that she would lose her job. (At that time, she did not know whether Respondent had made similar advances toward other bus drivers: she also believed Respondent to be a good friend of Charlie Horn, the Supervisor to whom she would address her complaint.) (Tr.9) There is no evidence that Respondent ever again made a sexual advance toward J.F. or touched her in an offensive manner. Nor did he carry out his threat to deny her field trips. In school years 1982-83, he assigned her six field trips; in 1983-84, seven. IV. Another incident involving Respondent occurred in 1979 or 1980--five or six years before it was used as grounds to suspend and dismiss him. In the bus garage--at approximately 2:00 p.m. on a school day--Respondent approached M.S., another female bus driver, and asked her what time she would return from her route. She told him and he replied, "well, I'm going to have the air turned on upstairs in the meeting room so you and I can go up there and have some fun," or words to that effect. (Tr.34, 41, 52) She interpreted this as a request for "some kind of sex," and was offended. (Tr.39) She told him that there would be "no way" she would go up there with him. (Tr.41) He laughed and walked away. V. The next incident involving Respondent occurred on a school day in November 1983--two years prior to its being used as a basis for suspending and dismissing him. A.H., another female bus driver, was in the bus barn in Kissimmee. She had recently been hired. As the other drivers left for a field trip to the Tupperware Auditorium, about 8:45-9:45 a.m., Respondent approached and asked her to go upstairs to a classroom with him so he could show her something. She complied and accompanied him to the classroom. Once inside he turned off the lights, shut the door, reached for her and tried to hug her. She switched the lights back on; he turned them off again. She protested that she didn't want to do this; and she didn't "play games like this." (Tr.63) He put his hand on her breast; she tried to push him away. He then tried to slip his hand inside her pants. She switched the lights back on; he switched them off. He then agreed to go downstairs, saying, "Don't be mad now, I was only kidding; only fooling around." (Tr.64) Although his actions were unwelcomed and offended her, she agreed to forget it. Later, he asked her if she was mad; although she was still angry; she said, "No." (Tr.64) She did not report the incident because she was a new employee and feared losing her job or being labeled as a troublemaker. Almost two years later, A.H. had another unpleasant encounter with Respondent. After inviting her to his office and resolving a problem she had with a newly assigned route, he said, "See what I did for you." (Tr.65) He then began hugging her and tried to kiss her. She pushed him away, and tried to go out the door. He held her by the arm; pushed her back against the closed door and began rubbing up against her. He then left, telling her not to be mad, he was just kidding. These advances, also, were unwelcomed and offended her. VI. Another incident occurred in October 1984. Respondent approached M.S., another female bus driver. She was standing in the hallway, he put his arm around her and "took a hold" of her right breast. (Tr.96) She considered this an unwelcomed sexual advance and was offended by it. Later in that school year, Respondent told her that he controlled the assignment of field trips and could "throw a lot of money [her] way." (Tr.97) She replied that she had a second job and did not need field trips. She reasonably interpreted his comment as an implied suggestion that if she submitted to his advances; she would receive employment benefits. VII. J.B. was another female bus driver employed by the School Board. At approximately 6:15 or 6:30 a.m., during a school day toward the end of 1983, she was sitting in the driver's seat on her bus; checking it out before leaving on her route. It was still dark. Respondent entered the bus and placed his hand on her thigh, with his fingers "going down between" her thighs. (Tr.119) She brushed his hand away. She did not report this incident because she thought she would not be believed. VIII. Respondent flatly denies that these incidents ever took place. His denial is rejected as unpersuasive. The testimony of the women who received his unwelcome advances is, however, accepted as credible and worthy of belief. These witnesses had no discernible bias or motive to falsify. They were candid and factual, though it was obviously difficult and embarrassing for them to testify. IX. Except for the complaint of incidents, there is no evidence that Respondent, over the last 16 years, has been other than a responsible and satisfactory employee for the School Board. He never received a bad evaluation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be suspended (without pay) from his employment for one year, commencing in November 1985, and that any reinstatement be conditional upon the availability of a comparable position for which he is qualified. He should not, however; be returned to his former position; and That; within 10 days of entry of a final order, Respondent pay the School Board the sum of $200.00 as attorneys' fees which it incurred in obtaining an order compelling discovery; dated April 15, 1986. D0NE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1986.
