The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent, Patricia Banks', employment as a school bus operator based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. Since October 31, 2001, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus operator. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County and the School Board (the "SPALC Agreement"). In September 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive a morning route and an afternoon route. Her morning route ended at about 10:00 a.m., and her afternoon route commenced at about 1:30 p.m. Respondent's daughter, India Miller, also worked as a school bus operator for the School Board. On September 20, 2004, between her morning and afternoon routes, Respondent drove her daughter to the Wal-Mart store on Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers. Ms. Miller's car was not running, and she was in the process of moving into a new residence. She had asked Respondent to take her to Wal-Mart to purchase cleaning supplies and to look into buying a new computer. Respondent and Ms. Miller were wearing their School Board bus driver uniforms. Respondent parked her car in front of the store, but near the garden department, which is on the side of the building along with the automotive department. Respondent and Ms. Miller entered the building through the front or "general merchandise" ("GM") entrance. Respondent and Ms. Miller proceeded to the electronics department to look at computers. They were assisted by David Heady, a sales associate in the electronics department. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent asked him several questions about the functionality of a certain computer, an eMachines desktop model priced at $698.00. Each woman said she wanted one of the computers, but Mr. Heady had only one of them on the floor. He put that one in a shopping cart for Respondent, then proceeded to the storeroom to get a second computer for Ms. Miller. When he returned with the second computer, about three minutes later, Mr. Heady noticed that Ms. Miller and the first computer were gone. Respondent told him that Ms. Miller had taken the computer to the front of the store to check out. This disturbed Mr. Heady because it is Wal-Mart's policy that all computers should be paid for in the electronics department. Mr. Heady's suspicions were also somewhat aroused by the fact that it was Ms. Miller who took the first computer out of his department, when it was Respondent who had asked for it. According to Mr. Heady, Respondent started toward the front of the store with the second computer, but Mr. Heady stopped her and told her she had to pay for it in the electronics department. Respondent paid cash for the computer, a total of $739.88, then left the electronics department. Mr. Heady then called the loss prevention office and spoke with loss prevention officer, Bernard "Bo" Lee, to inform him that a computer that had not been paid for had been removed from the electronics department. He testified that he checked out Respondent before alerting loss prevention of the missing computer because he did not want a confrontation with Respondent. Mr. Heady also informed his supervisor in the electronics department, Terrell Russ, about the missing computer. Mr. Russ, in turn, made his own call to loss prevention and spoke with another loss prevention officer, Mickey Holman. Respondent testified that she and her daughter went into the electronics department because her daughter wanted a new computer. Respondent stated that she knows very little about computers and that it was Ms. Miller who was asking technical questions of Mr. Heady. Respondent did ask if Mr. Heady had a second computer because she was interested in placing one on layaway for her sons. Respondent testified that there was no computer on the floor of the electronics department. When her daughter told Mr. Heady she wanted to buy the model under discussion, he had to retrieve it from the storeroom. Respondent testified that she waited for Mr. Heady to bring the computer while Ms. Miller shopped for her cleaning supplies. Mr. Heady returned with the computer and told Respondent that she would have to pay for the computer before she could take it out of the electronics department. Respondent called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and told her that she had to come back to the electronics department to pay for the computer. Respondent also asked Ms. Miller if she could afford to lend her the money to place a computer on layaway. Ms. Miller responded that she would not know until she completed her purchases. Respondent could not recall whether Ms. Miller told her that she was coming back to purchase the computer. Respondent left the electronics department and walked to the in-store McDonalds to eat lunch. Finding the McDonalds too crowded, she went outside to smoke a cigarette. The one piece of documentary evidence available at the hearing was the Wal-Mart receipt for the purchase of the computer. The receipt indicates that the computer was purchased with cash in the electronics department, though it does not establish whether it was Respondent or Ms. Miller who made the purchase. Respondent's testimony agrees with that of Mr. Heady on one point: Ms. Miller left the electronics department and was separated from Respondent for at least several minutes. Messrs. Lee, Holman, and Russ all observed Ms. Miller during the time she was separated from Respondent. Mr. Lee testified that he was patrolling the floors of Wal-Mart to watch for shoplifters. He noticed three black women, including Ms. Miller and two unidentified women, placing an eMachines computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Lee stated that the eMachines computers were a "hot item," and he, therefore, paid special attention when customers placed them in shopping carts. Though he had seen Respondent with the other women in the electronics department, Mr. Lee did not see her touch the computer. Mr. Lee stated that he followed Ms. Miller to the front of the store. Respondent was still in the electronics department. Mr. Lee observed Ms. Miller push the cart holding the computer to the line of cash registers, through the line, past the greeter who checked her receipt, and out the GM entrance. Though he did not specifically observe Ms. Miller pay for the computer at the front registers, Mr. Lee assumed that it had been paid for because the greeter allowed her to leave the store without incident. From just inside the GM doors, Mr. Lee watched Ms. Miller walk to a car in the front parking lot. Mr. Lee did not see Ms. Miller load the computer into the car, but he did observe her re-enter the store a few minutes later, without the computer, but carrying a Wal-Mart receipt. He followed Ms. Miller to the toy department, where she met Respondent and the two unidentified women standing near a shopping cart containing a second eMachines computer. Mr. Holman testified that after being radioed by Mr. Russ that a computer had been taken from the electronics department by one of two women in school bus driver uniforms, he began searching the store. He observed Ms. Miller go through the checkout area and past the greeter, who signaled that Ms. Miller had a receipt for her computer. Mr. Holman radioed to the electronics department and told them there was no problem, that the woman had paid for the computer. The person in electronics who answered told Mr. Holman that there was a second computer. Mr. Holman went to look for the second computer while Mr. Lee maintained his surveillance on Ms. Miller. Mr. Holman found the missing computer sitting in an unattended shopping cart in the toy department. After a minute or two, he saw Respondent approach the cart. Then, two other women joined her, and they began talking. Mr. Holman stated that Respondent approached the cart several times, but did not actually touch or take hold of it. After a few minutes, Ms. Miller approached the group of three women. Mr. Lee followed her and maintained his surveillance apart from Mr. Holman. Both loss prevention officers were out of earshot of the four women. Mr. Lee recalled that Ms. Miller handed the receipt to Respondent at that point, though they later passed it back and forth more than once. After some conversation, the two unidentified women walked away. Ms. Miller began pushing the cart containing the computer toward the automotive department called the "TLE" for "Tire and Lube Express." Respondent walked in front of the cart. Mr. Lee noted that exiting through the TLE in the rear of the store would require Respondent and Ms. Miller to walk around the outside of the store to reach the front parking lot and that exiting through the GM entrance would be much more convenient. Mr. Lee testified that this behavior alone would have aroused his suspicions. The women guided the cart out through the TLE entrance. Ms. Miller pushed the cart, and Respondent lifted the front of the cart over the metal strip in the doorway. The electronic article surveillance ("EAS") system did not sound an alarm. Mr. Lee testified that it is not unusual for the EAS system not to sound, and he attached no significance to its silence. After the women were outside the store, Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman approached and asked them to return to the store. Ms. Miller told the men they had scared her. She said, "I pissed myself [sic]." Ms. Miller also told Mr. Lee that she had a receipt for a computer. Mr. Lee found it significant that she said "a computer," rather than "this computer." Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman escorted the women to the loss prevention office. Ms. Miller, ultimately, admitted to stealing the computer. Respondent denied doing anything wrong and was visibly upset when she was detained. In the loss prevention office, Respondent called her employer on her cell phone to arrange for someone to cover her afternoon bus route. None of the Wal-Mart employees present in the loss prevention office could recall Respondent's making any statement that could be construed as incriminating. The local police arrived, and both women were arrested. Ms. Miller subsequently resigned her employment with the School Board. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's criminal case had not been resolved. Again, Respondent told a different story. While she was smoking her cigarette outside, Respondent began to worry about finishing the shopping in time to drive her afternoon bus route. She called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and asked how much longer she would be in the store. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she was paying for her merchandise and asked Respondent whether she had seen her in-laws in the store. Respondent said that she had not seen them and asked where they were. Ms. Miller told her that she last saw them in the toy department. Respondent finished her cigarette, then walked back into Wal-Mart. She walked to the toy department and found her relatives where Ms. Miller had last seen them. Respondent noted that they had a computer in a shopping cart. One of the in-laws told her that it was Ms. Miller's computer, and they were waiting there for Ms. Miller to return. Ms. Miller arrived, took control of the shopping cart, and asked Respondent if she was ready to go. Respondent saw a Wal-Mart receipt in her daughter's hand. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she needed to buy something in the automotive department. Ms. Miller pushed the cart toward the rear of the store, where the TLE was located. When they reached the TLE, Ms. Miller began asking questions of the sales associate. Respondent interrupted her, saying they had to leave in order to make their afternoon bus routes. Ms. Miller pushed the cart out the TLE entrance, and they were approached by Messrs. Holman and Lee, who told them they needed to come back inside. Ms. Miller said, "Oh, shit. You're gonna make me piss on myself." Respondent wondered why Ms. Miller was reacting so strongly, if she had done nothing wrong. Respondent was adamant that she had no idea Ms. Miller was attempting to steal a computer. Respondent believed Ms. Miller had paid for the computer. Respondent testified that she and Ms. Miller had both worked for Wal-Mart in the past, and both knew that a customer is not allowed to take a computer from the electronics department without paying for it. Ms. Miller apparently had a receipt for the computer. Respondent testified that it never crossed her mind that Ms. Miller would steal a computer; that she believed her daughter "had better sense than that." Based upon the testimony of all the witnesses, including the deposition testimony of Messrs. Lee and Holman, and the documentary evidence, it is found that the School Board did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent stole a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence certainly demonstrated that Respondent's daughter, Ms. Miller, attempted to steal a computer. However, even if the testimony of the School Board's witnesses were accepted in its entirety, no witness definitively linked Respondent to the computer in such a way as to demonstrate her guilty knowledge that it was being stolen. The testimony of Mr. Holman cannot be credited. After detaining Respondent and Ms. Miller, Mr. Holman prepared a written report attesting that he observed Ms. Miller purchase a computer in the electronics department and take it to her car, while Respondent selected another computer, put it in a shopping cart, and took it to the toy department. In his pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Holman testified that he saw Ms. Miller select and pay for a computer in the electronics department. During cross-examination during the final hearing, Mr. Holman conceded that he witnessed none of these events. Mr. Holman's efforts to explain his misleading statements were unconvincing. He essentially stated that his reporting practice was to write a first-person narrative commingling hearsay reports from other witnesses with his own personal observations. Thus, when Mr. Holman wrote, "I observed a female (India Miller) purchase a desktop PC in the electronics [department]," he actually meant that Mr. Lee observed the purchase and later told Mr. Holman about it. Mr. Holman's testimony must be disregarded because the undersigned cannot reliably distinguish between Mr. Holman's first-hand observations and the hearsay statements that he adopted as his own. The testimony of the remaining witnesses conflicted on key points. The evidence established that Mr. Heady was confused as to the time of day during which the relevant events occurred. Mr. Heady had no recollection of the two unidentified black women whom Mr. Lee stated were with Respondent and Ms. Miller in the electronics department. Mr. Lee stated that he saw Ms. Miller and the two unidentified women put a computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Heady testified that he placed the computers in the shopping carts. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent paid for the first computer. However, he also testified that it was Respondent who asked him technical questions about the computer's capabilities. Respondent credibly testified that she is ignorant about computers and that it was her daughter who was asking Mr. Heady the technical questions. It is likely that Mr. Heady's recollection was confused and that it was Ms. Miller who paid for the first computer. Respondent's narrative of the relevant events was not without its inconsistencies, but the burden was not on Respondent to establish her innocence. Respondent's narrative was credible as to the key point, that she did not know her daughter was attempting to steal a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence presented by the School Board was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent ever gave any indication, through her words or her actions, that she knew Ms. Miller had not paid for the computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Termination of Employment, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding her back pay and benefits retroactive to December 16, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 15th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact During the time in question, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school bus driver. She had become a bus driver in October or September, 1991. On August 17, 1993, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay as a result of the incidents that are the subject of the above-styled proceeding. On April 25, 1993, while driving an empty school bus to Tampa to pick up students on a field trip, Respondent stopped at a gas station for fuel. Hungry, she found that she had not brought any money with her. She appropriately charged the fuel on the school credit card. But, contrary to Petitioner's policy, she charged a soda and a bag of chips on the same card. When she returned to Ft. Myers and submitted her charge slip, she forgot to mention the personal items. She did not offer to reimburse Petitioner for the personal charges, which totalled $1.69, until demand was made for this amount. While returning from Tampa on the same day driving the loaded school bus, Respondent was proceeding west on Tucker Grade Road approaching the intersection with US 41. Failing to notice a marked railroad crossing, Respondent drove the bus over the crossing without stopping, opening the door, and looking and listening for a train, as required to do by Petitioner's policy. A train was in fact approaching, although some distance away. Evidence offered by Petitioner that Respondent operated her loaded bus at an unsafe speed on three consecutive days in May, 1993, is discredited. Petitioner's sole witness on this matter had repeated clashes with Respondent, for which Petitioner's witness bears at least an equal share of the responsibility. Moreover, Petitioner's witness admitted to changing lanes more than once while operating a loaded school bus to block Respondent's bus from passing when Respondent was trying to service her longer, crosstown route. Petitioner's witness was uncertain as to their relative speeds and only vaguely recalled the incidents allegedly taking place in May. On March 26, 1993, Respondent received an evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. The evaluation indicated that she had reached an "effective" level of performance for a wide variety of responsibilities. This is the lower of the two possible marks that are satisfactory. Two other marks are available to designate unsatisfactory performance; the better of these is that the task is "inconsistently practiced." Respondent's evaluation during the 1991-92 school year was about the same, although she received "inconsistently practiced" for attitude and appearance (the latter for failing to wear her uniform). During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent received two evaluations. The first was dated November 15, 1991. She received "inconsistently practiced" for adhering to driving laws and for a safe driving record. The notes mention a "preventable accident" on October 11, 1991, and that Respondent had exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles per hour at one location at an unspecified time. The remaining marks were "effective." Another evaluation for the 1991-92 school year, which was dated December 13, 1991, contained all "effective" marks. The charging of a bag of chips and soda has already received more attention than the act and omission merit. Failing to stop, look, and listen for a train, while operating a loaded school bus, is a very serious offense. Failing even to notice the crossing is not a defense; rather, such an admission raises a question of Respondent's fitness as a school bus driver. This seriousness of this offense is aggravated by Respondent's record. In a brief career operating a school bus for Petitioner, Respondent has already been involved in a "preventable accident" and has been detected operating her bus at an excess speed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment contract. ENTERED on March 15, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on March 15, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4-5: rejected as unnecessary. 6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as subordinate. 9-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-16: rejected as subordinate. 17: rejected as repetitious. 18: rejected as unnecessary. 19-20: rejected as subordinate. 21-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-26: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 27: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 4-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6-7: rejected as unnecessary. 8-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-18: rejected as subordinate. 19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Acting Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Ave. Ft. Myers, FL 33901-3916 Hon. Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Daniel H. Kunkel Kunkel Miller & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second St. Sarasota, FL 34236 Robert J. Coleman 2300 McGregor Blvd. P.O. Box 2089 Ft. Myers, FL 33902
The Issue Did Respondent Mary Jane Nilsen violate the policies of Petitioner School Board of Highlands County (Board) and thereby justify a five-day suspension without pay?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Board is the county agency responsible for operating the public schools within the Highlands County School District as established in Chapter 228, Florida Statutes, including the hiring of, among other personnel, school bus drivers. Respondent has been employed in the Polk County School System as a school bus driver since 1991. Respondent is employed pursuant to an annual contract. Dr. Calvin Smith testified that if an employee such as Respondent has been employed by the Board for 3 continuous years, then that employee would be eligible for a continuing contract. Although Respondent had been employed continuously by the Board for more than 3 years, there was no evidence that Respondent had been granted a continuing contract by the Board which would require the Board to show just cause for disciplining Respondent. By letter dated June 11, 1996, Superintendent Farmer advised Respondent that he was recommending to the Board that she be suspended for five days without pay based on information submitted to him "by Mr. Roy Wright, Coordinator of Transportation, Mr. Calvin Smith, Director of Operations, and the recommendation of Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent." By letter dated June 11, 1996, Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent, advised Superintendent Farmer, based on the information submitted to him by Mr. Roy Wright and Calvin Smith, that he was recommending a five-day suspension without pay for Respondent. By letter dated June 6, 1996, Mr. Roy Wright advised Dr. Calvin Smith that he recommended a five-day suspension for Respondent. The letter in pertinent part provides: I am recommending that Mrs. Mary Jane Nilsen, a bus driver, be suspended from work without pay for five days. Mrs. Nilsen was involved in a confrontation with several other bus drivers in the Lake Placid compound on the morning of May 31. * * * Mrs. Nilsen has had several previous episodes of angry and belligerent behavior which have resulted in actions with the progressive discipline practice. The first such incident was October 21, 1994, when Mrs. Nilsen was given a verbal warning for a "loud, rude and very discourteous" exchange with her supervisor. . . . Also, in February of this year, I gave Mrs. Nilsen a written letter of reprimand for "belligerent, hostile and insubordinate" behavior toward the Area Transportation Manager and the Transportation Operations Supervisor. These actions took place during a conference with Mrs. Nilsen and several other drivers in the Lake Placid Transportation office. . . You will note that in my letter of February 28, I warned Mrs. Nilsen that a future incident could result in a five day suspension without pay. * * * Therefore, I am recommending her suspension without pay for five days consistent with the progressive discipline Provision of the negotiated agreement. (Emphasis furnished). A copy of this letter was forwarded to Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent, by Dr. Calvin Smith with a note that Dr. Smith concurred in Mr. Wright's recommendation. The letter of February 28, 1996, from Roy Wright to Respondent provides in pertinent part as follows: This letter is in reference to the meeting and discussion that you and several drivers had with Mrs. Carlene Varnes, Area Transportation Manager and Mrs. Shirley Higgins, Transportation Operations Manager on Monday morning February 26. You will consider that the outcome of Mrs. Hiagins and Mrs. Varnes discussion with you stands as a verbal warning. I am writing to you in order to emphasize the position of the department regarding your conduct. Your will refrain from the use of profanity at any time you are in the uniform of a Highlands County School Bus Driver, particularly when you are in the presence of other School Bus Drivers and School Board Employees. The incident at a local restaurant on Friday, February 23, occurred while you and other school bus drivers were in uniform. Other drivers present asked you to quiet down and stop the vulgar language. Your failure to do so created an intimidating, hostile and offensive situation which has a direct bearing on the work environment. . . The language and actions on your part also presented an unfavorable and unacceptable image which undermines the public's perception of school bus drivers as professionals. In addition, your reaction to the management staff when this matter was brought to your attention can only be described as belligerent, hostile and insubordinate. . . Your response to your immediate supervisor when she was investigating the matter and warning you of inappropriate conduct while in uniform was completely out of line. You may consider this a written reprimand for that action. You have now received a verbal warning and a written reprimand. The next incident may result in a five day suspension without pay. (Emphasis furnished). It appears that the verbal warning and written reprimand were based on the same incident. This letter does not mention the October 21, 1994, verbal warning. Respondent did not challenge the verbal warning given to her for the infraction observed on October 21, 1994. Likewise, Respondent did not challenge Mr. Wright's decision to issue a verbal warning and written reprimand for the infraction observed on February 26, 1996. Carlene Varnes, Area Transportation Manager at Lake Placid, gave Kala Barfield and two other bus drivers permission to wash their buses in the wash area of the bus compound at Lake Placid on May 31, 1966. The record is not clear, but apparently Barfield and the other bus drivers were allowed to wash their buses during the busy time of other bus drivers coming into the compound to park. On May 31, 1996, Barfield backed her bus into the wash area of the bus compound at Lake Placid. However, Barfield could not get her bus entirely into the wash area due to a vehicle (van) being parked in the wash area. Barfield made no attempt to have the owner move the vehicle. Also, at this same time Brenda Sullivan was fueling her bus which, along with Barfield washing her bus, created a situation where other bus drivers would have to carefully navigate between the two buses in order to park their buses. While Barfield was washing her bus and Sullivan was fueling her bus, Respondent entered the compound and pulled her bus "nose-to-nose" with Barfield's bus, leaving approximately 15 to 20 feet between the buses. Respondent testified that she made no attempt to navigate between Barfield's and Sullivan's buses while Sullivan was fueling her bus because Respondent had determined that her bus could not be navigated between the two buses without incident. With Respondent's bus parked as it was, all other buses entering the compound were unable to navigate around Respondent's bus and park. Therefore, once the area of the compound behind Respondent's bus was filled, other buses were forced to park on the road outside the compound. Respondent's action in this regard violated Board policy of not blocking buses in the compound and created a hazardous condition for those buses parked on the road. . Respondent was aware that buses entering the compound after her were unable to navigate past her bus and that bus traffic was "piling up" behind Respondent, creating a problem out in the road. Respondent was also aware of those bus drivers behind her attempting to get Respondent to move. Although Respondent may have believed that she could not navigate her bus around Barfield's and Sullivan's buses, she made no attempt to alleviate this hazardous situation by requesting another available bus driver or anyone else for assistance in navigating her bus around Barfield's and Sullivan's bus. The incident lasted approximately 10 to 20 minutes. Varnes was advised immediately of the situation, but due to an emergency with another bus driver, Varnes was unable to address this problem immediately. By the time Varnes was able to address the problem, Sullivan had finished fueling her bus and moved it. Upon Varnes coming on the scene, she told Respondent to move her bus and Respondent did so. However, Respondent parked her bus in backwards which created a problem for other buses attempting to get by. Upon being advised that her bus was incorrectly parked, Respondent corrected the situation. It is clear that Respondent did not like the idea of Barfield being allowed to wash her bus while other buses were attempting to park, and so expressed that view on May 31, 1996. As a result, Barfield attempted to discuss this matter with Respondent in a somewhat heated fashion, but Respondent boarded her bus and closed the door preventing any further conversation on the matter with Barfield.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for a period of 5 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1997, in Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Richard R. Farmer Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 9300 Sebring, Florida 33870-4098 James F. McCollum, Esquire Clay Oberhausen, Esquire 129 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 Mark Herdman, Esquire 34650 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue Copies furnished: (See next page) Copies furnished to: Michael K. Grogan Timothy B. Strong Attorneys at Law 2065 Herschel Street Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, FL 32203 Thomas W. Brooks Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Otis A. Mason, Superintendent St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, FL 32084 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Case No. 90-5886 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5886 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, School Board of St. Johns County Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 3(1); 4-15(12-23); 17(24); 18(25); 25-30(6-11); and 31-40(26-35). Proposed findings of fact 19-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 1, 2 and 16 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Philip Brown Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1) and 3-5(2-4). Proposed findings of fact 2, 6-9, and 14-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 10, 11, and 18-21 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 12 and 13 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence.
Findings Of Fact Philip Brown was employed as a school bus driver by the School Board of St. Johns County in July 1989. On August 27, 1990, the first day of the school year, Mr. Brown experienced difficulty with students assigned to his bus at Ketterlinus Middle School. Students were throwing paper, sitting in the aisles, drinking beverages on the bus, and making racial slurs at Brown. One student was removed from the bus and another had to be removed temporarily for discussion with Assistant Principal Ron Russell. After getting the students sufficiently calmed down to begin transporting them home, Brown left Ketterlinus and began his route. The students resumed misbehaving during the trip, throwing paper and yelling loudly at each other. After approximately ten minutes, Brown determined that the students were sufficiently disruptive to warrant returning them to the school, so he turned the bus around and called in to the transportation office to inform the dispatcher that he was returning to school because the students were rowdy. Debra Sapp, the School Board's Route Specialist, answered the radio when Brown called in and responded "okay" when Brown told her he was returning to Ketterlinus. It took approximately six or seven minutes for Brown to reach Ketterlinus after speaking with Ms. Sapp. At Ketterlinus Brown stopped the bus and ordered the students off the bus. A female student on the bus, who had not been disruptive, asked Brown how the students were to get home, and Brown responded that he did not care how they got home. Brown immediately left the school. The students had no adult supervision and Brown had not made any effort to ensure that the students had adult supervision. A short time after the School Board Route Specialist Sapp received the call from Brown advising that he was returning to the school, Sapp received a call from Assistant Principal Russell, who said that the bus had just dropped the students off and left the school. Ms. Sapp called Brown on the radio and told him that he had to go back to the school and get the students, that he could not leave the students, and that Mr. Russell was there to handle any disciplinary problems. Brown responded to Ms. Sapp and stated that he would not return to the school and that he refused to transport the students. Ms. Sapp then instructed Brown to bring the bus back to the Transportation Department compound and that someone else would complete his routes. Brown complied with this instruction. St. Johns County School Board Rule 6Gx 55-8.06 provides: Responsibilities of School Bus Driver It shall be the responsibility of the school bus driver under the regulations of the School Board to perform all duties as follows: * * * (3) Transported pupils * * * To maintain order and discipline, under the direction of the principal, on the part of any pupil passenger. To permit a child to leave the bus only at a regular stop except upon written request of the parent or guardian or at the direction of the principal. * * * (11) Relationship to other personnel * * * (c) Pupils The bus driver shall be responsible for the safety of the pupils on his bus and shall be constantly on the alert for any condition that would endanger their safety. The bus driver shall assume a responsibility for the control of pupils as delegated to him by the principal. He may not: * * * Put a child off the bus at any other than the regular stop except upon written permission of the parent or the principal, provided, that should an emergency develop due to the conduct of pupils on the bus, the bus driver may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect the pupils on the bus. The primary emphasis of the School Board's policy on transportation of students is ensuring the safety of the students. The primary responsibility of the school bus driver is to ensure the safety of everyone on the bus. During his employment with the School Board, Brown received training on safety and proper procedures as required by the Department of Education. Ida Bowman, the School Board's Safety Training Specialist, trains the school bus drivers and is responsible for conducting the training that is required by the Department of Education. During the training that is conducted by Ms. Bowman, drivers are told the procedure to be followed in a situation in which they return to the school because of disruptive students. During the training that is provided by Ms. Bowman, drivers are told that if they return to the school with disruptive students and there is nobody there waiting for them, they are to contact the Transportation Department again and the Transportation staff will arrange to have someone meet the bus. During the training sessions that are conducted by Ms. Bowman, drivers are told that the students are the drivers' responsibility from the time that they get on the bus until they are safely delivered home and that drivers are not to leave the students unattended. Brown attended the classes in which Ms. Bowman discussed the above procedures to be followed when returning students to the school. Dwaine Fisher, the School Board's Director of Transportation, received complaints prior to November 27, 1990, concerning Brown's failure to follow School Board procedures and complete his duties as a bus driver. Fisher had received three previous complaints about Brown's failure to follow School Board procedure concerning transportation of students. Brown had been reprimanded in the past for leaving students because his actions affected the safety of the students since there was no one there to supervise the students. Fisher had instructed Brown that when he returned students to the school because of discipline problems, he was to get with an administrator when he got back to the school. From his previous experience, Brown knew that it was improper to drop students off at school if there was no adult supervision. The duties of Ms. Sapp, the School Board's Route Specialist, include setting up routes, handling any problems that come up with the routes or the drivers, giving the drivers instructions on new stops and changes to their routes, talking to the public concerning routes, and instructing drivers on various routes to take. The Route Specialist has the authority to direct drivers where to go. The School Board's Director of Transportation does not have to confirm instructions given to drivers by Ms. Sapp. Ms. Sapp, as the Route Specialist, had the authority to tell Brown to return to the school to transport the students. Brown's refusal to comply with Sapp's instruction to return to the school was viewed as insubordination by the School Board's Department of Transportation. During a meeting held on August 28, 1990 in the office of Robert Braden, the School Board's Director of Human Resources and Management Training, which meeting was attended by Mr. Braden, Mr. Brown, Mr. Fisher, Assistant Superintendent of Operations David Toner, and Union Representative Claudia Brunke, Brown admitted that he dropped the students off without adult supervision, left the school, and refused to return to the school when directed to do so by Ms. Sapp. If the situation that took place on August 27, 1990, occurred again, Brown acknowledged that he would not comply with a directive of the Route Specialist unless formally approved by the Director of Transportation. Messrs. Toner, Braden, and Fisher recommended to the Superintendent that Brown be dismissed because on August 27, 1990, he left the students at Ketterlinus Middle School unattended, refused to wait for an administrator at the school, and refused to follow direct orders from the Route Specialist to go back and transport the students. No other driver for St. Johns County School Board has engaged in conduct similar to the conduct in which Brown engaged on August 27, 1990. Based upon Brown's actions, the Superintendent suspended the Respondent and recommended his termination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of St. Johns County enter a Final Order terminating Philip Brown from his employment as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 day of February, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should terminate the Respondent's employment as a school bus driver for the reasons set forth in correspondence dated December 14, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. McGriff was employed as a school bus driver by the School Board. She was hired for this position in 2003, and is on a continuing contract. In the four years since she began working as a bus driver for the School Board she has had no disciplinary action taken against her. As a bus driver, Ms. McGriff is classified as an educational support employee of the School Board's Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2006).2 Ms. McGriff is a member of the Communication Workers of America for Professional Support Employees ("CWA"), and the School Board and the CWA have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("Bargaining Agreement") that is effective from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2008. Article 13C.2. of the Bargaining Agreement provides in pertinent part: Discipline and Termination of Professional Support Staff on Annual or Continuous Employment Status Suspension and dismissal of professional support staff personnel shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures contained below except that the Superintendent may suspend members of the professional support staff in an emergency. With School Board approval, an employee may be suspended without pay, discharged and/or returned to annual status, for reasons including but not limited to the following: * * * 9. Endangering the health, safety or welfare of any student or employee of the District. At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. McGriff was assigned as the driver of school bus number 69, and she regularly drove students attending Vero Beach High School to and from school. Students C.C., P.K., and E. were among the students who regularly rode on Ms. McGriff's school bus. On October 27, 2006, Ms. McGriff prepared a bus referral to the assistant principal for student C.C., in which she stated that he had used inappropriate language while riding school bus number 69. Frank Harmer, one of the assistant principals in charge of discipline at Vero Beach High School, received the referral and met with student C.C. on October 31, 2006, to discuss his conduct on the school bus on October 27, 2006. Mr. Harmer told C.C. to stop using inappropriate language on the bus. During this conversation, C.C. told Mr. Harmer that he had been previously harassed by students on the bus. Mr. Harmer urged C.C. to report any future harassing behavior by students to the school bus driver. In preparing for the meeting with C.C., Mr. Harmer consulted the School Board's computer system and learned that C.C. is a child with an emotional handicap and that he receives exceptional student education services from the School Board. On October 31, 2006, after speaking with student C.C., Mr. Harmer spoke with Ms. McGriff about the October 27, 2006, referral and about his conversation with C.C. During this conversation, Mr. Harmer told Ms. McGriff that C.C. was a student with an emotional handicap and that she should ensure that the other students did not harass him in the future. Ms. McGriff indicated to Mr. Harmer that she would prevent any future harassment. On the afternoon of November 3, 2006, at approximately 1:30 p.m., Ms. McGriff was waiting on school bus number 69 for the end of classes and the arrival of the students who would ride the bus home that afternoon. The conversation and ensuing events that took place on school bus number 69 were recorded on a surveillance video that was installed in the bus in accordance with School Board policy to record the activities of the bus driver and students. Student P.K. came onto the school bus before any of the other students, and P.K. initiated a conversation with Ms. McGriff about student C.C. During this conversation, which took place at approximately 1:31 p.m., Ms. McGriff referred to C.C. as a "dumb ass," and she complained to P.K. that C.C. got away with "murder." Ms. McGriff also told P.K. that she did not believe that C.C. was emotionally handicapped and that she wanted him off of her bus. In this conversation, student P.K. told Ms. McGriff that student C.C. had written P.K. a note telling P.K. that he wanted to fight him. P.K. indicated that he might try to pick a fight with C.C. on the bus that day and told Ms. McGriff to hold a clipboard in front of the video camera so the fight couldn't be seen. Ms. McGriff told P.K. that she would hold a clipboard up and would just continue driving if P.K. and C.C. got into a fight. Student P.K. had with him a stack of signs containing derogatory statements about student C.C. that he had prepared and wanted to post on the bus. Ms. McGriff laughed and encouraged P.K. to hang the signs on the windows of the bus, which he did. When P.K. asked if Ms. McGriff had any tape, she told him that she did not but that she would give tape to him if she had any. Ms. McGriff also told P.K. that she would try to drive without laughing but that it would be difficult. At approximately 1:35 p.m., student E. came onto the bus with a sign she had prepared that contained a derogatory remark about student C.C. P.K. and E. finished hanging the signs, gave each other a "high five," and Ms. McGriff laughed. The other students began entering the school bus at approximately 1:38 p.m. When student C.C. boarded the bus, he saw the signs and tore down two of them. Student P.K. re-hung one sign and gave the other to C.C. C.C. sat in his seat with his head down. P.K. took pictures of C.C. with his camera phone, and Ms. McGriff chuckled. Ms. McGriff pulled the bus away from Vero Beach High School at approximately 1:43 p.m. and began dropping off students at their bus stops. When student C.C. rose to exit the bus at his stop, student P.K. called out to him, "Bye Charles." C.C. turned, walked back to P.K., and struck P.K. several times, very quickly. C.C. then quickly left the bus. Ms. McGriff called and reported the fight to her supervisor. She also thanked P.K. and told him: "I needed that." Both students C.C. and P.K. received punishment in the form of out-of-school suspensions as a result of the altercation on the bus. Ms. McGriff admitted to having said things she should not have said and to using poor judgment with regard to the November 3, 2006, incident. Ms. McGriff endangered the safety and welfare of student C.C. on November 3, 2006, by allowing student P.K. to harass and humiliate C.C. on school bus number 69; by encouraging P.K. to harass and humiliate C.C. by laughing at P.K.'s plans to hang derogatory signs and to start a fight with C.C.; by making derogatory remarks to P.K. about C.C. herself; and by appearing to approve of P.K.'s plan to start a fight with C.C. by promising to cover the video camera when the fight started.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a final order finding that Andrea McGriff endangered the safety and welfare of student C.C. and terminating her employment as a school bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collin Hall, has been employed with the Lee County School District since August 13, 2001. He is currently assigned as a Bus Operator in Petitioner’s Transportation Department. Respondent is a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (“SPALC”) and has been a member during all times relevant to this matter. Respondent was assigned as an unassigned regular (UAR) bus operator during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school year. A UAR is available each day to be assigned to a bus when the regular driver is out sick or if the bus route is challenging. The District considers a UAR bus operator as its most professional bus operator. The allegations against Respondent are set forth in the Petition for Termination of Employment filed with DOAH (the Petition). In relevant part, the Petition charges Respondent with the following: failing to control students on the bus Respondent was operating; failing to protect students on the bus if an emergency should develop due to the conduct of the students; failing to ensure that each passenger on the bus was wearing a safety belt; failing to maintain order and discipline, require all passengers remain seated and keep the aisles clear, and immediately report to the designated official student misconduct occurring on the bus in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.017; grabbing a student in violation of Board Policy 5.26; failing to adhere to the highest ethical standards and to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students in violation of Board Policies 5.02 and 5.29; and failing to call a dispatcher for assistance if a discipline problem is not resolved in a few minutes as outlined in the Lee County School District’s Handbook for bus operators. Respondent attended various trainings during his tenure with the District, including training entitled, “Wolfgang Student Management,” “All Safe in their Seats,” “Dealing with Difficult Students/Seatbelts,” “Bully on Bus,” “ESE Behavior” and “First Line of Defense.” All of these classes provided training in student management or student discipline on a school bus. In addition to receiving yearly and periodic training, Respondent was provided a manual entitled “School Bus Driver’s Manual, Critical Incident Procedures” published by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and distributed by the District to all bus operators. Page 14 of the manual outlines the procedures to be used for disruptive students. The Bus Driver’s Manual further provides in its Introduction that: The procedures outlined in this document are guidelines (emphasis added) and should be reviewed and tailored by each school district to conform to local policies – always (emphasis theirs) adhere to the district emergency procedures. Although these guidelines reflect the best practices of several Florida school district transportation departments, no one can foresee the details of every emergency. Many emergencies require the driver’s best judgment, keeping in mind the priorities of life safety (sic), protection of property and the environment. In keeping with the FDOE’s directive to tailor the guidelines to conform to the District’s local policies, the District established a policy for the “Preservation of Order on Special Needs Bus.” That policy is outlined in Robert Morgan’s August 24, 2008, Memorandum to Professional Standards. It requires the school bus operator “and/or attendant” to preserve order and good behavior on the part of all pupils being transported. It also provides that: shall an emergency develop due to conduct of the pupils on the bus, the bus driver and/or attendant shall take steps reasonably necessary to protect the pupils on the bus. They are not obligated to place themselves in physical danger; however, they are obligated to immediately report pupil misconduct to a Transportation Supervisor. (emphasis supplied) On May 21, 2008, Respondent was assigned to Bus 999, along with bus attendant Kelia Wallace. Bus 999 transported students that attend Royal Palm Exceptional Center. Royal Palm Exceptional Center is a school that educates students with special needs, including those that may have emotional issues that result in disruptive behavior. All Royal Palm students have Individual Education Plans that require special transportation. Bus 999 was equipped with an audio and video recording system, as are all Exceptional Student Education (ESE) busses in Lee County. The audio and video are recorded to a hard drive which can be viewed at a later time. Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation South, was alerted of an issue on Bus 999 on the evening of May 21, 2008. Morgan was informed that Bus 999 made an unscheduled stop at the San Carlos Park Fire Station during its afternoon route earlier that day. As a result, on the morning of May 22, 2008, Morgan viewed the video recording from Bus 999 from the previous afternoon. Following his review of the footage, Morgan directed a member of his staff to copy the relevant portions of the raw footage to a compact disc. The information on the disc was then forwarded to the District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity for review and further investigation. There was some testimony from Respondent doubting the accuracy of the video and inferring that the video had been altered in some way. However, the record is devoid of any evidence to contradict the audio and video evidence submitted on compact disc by the District. In addition, there was credible eye witness testimony relative to the incident. After Respondent picked up the students at their school and was following the route to deliver them home, Student C.M. was acting inappropriately in the back of the bus. From his driver’s seat, Respondent commanded C.M. to sit down, which was ignored. Respondent pulled over, stopped the bus and proceeded to the back of the bus to deal with C.M. Respondent grabbed C.M., lifted him off the floor of the bus, carried him several rows forward, and put him into another seat on the bus. C.M. was not kicking, punching or threatening any other student when Respondent took this action. C.M. continued to carry on a taunting dialogue with students, including J.O., who was in the back of the bus. Respondent then proceeded on the route. After several minutes Respondent noticed some paper sitting in the middle of the aisle. While the bus was moving, Respondent ordered J.O. to come forward in the aisle to retrieve the piece of paper he had thrown toward the front of the bus. As a result, J.O. walked by C.M. who was still taunting J.O. and other students. The two students then become involved in a physical altercation. Respondent said nothing and continued to drive the bus. The two students continued to fight for approximately 40 seconds before Respondent stopped the bus and walked toward the back of the bus to get a closer look. The fight continued for an entire minute before Respondent took any action to intervene or break up the fight. Instead, Respondent instructed his bus attendant to write up a disciplinary referral (students fighting), but stood nearby and watched the students fight. Respondent said nothing to the students. Respondent then turned his back on the fight, threw up his hands in disgust and returned to the driver’s seat to resume driving the bus. Respondent did not contact dispatch or law enforcement regarding the fight. Approximately 30 seconds later, student C.M. yelled an expletive at student J.S. J.S. came forward, confronted C.M., and battered him to the point where C.M. ended up on the floor of the bus, where J.S. punched and kicked him numerous times. Respondent said nothing. The incident continued for another 20 seconds before J.S. backed off. Respondent again walked down the aisle toward the students. While lying on the floor between the seats, C.M. complained that he was injured. Respondent waited several seconds prior to attempting to assess C.M.’s injuries. Respondent then stated to C.M., “Let me see your nose.” Respondent observed that C.M. suffered a bloody nose as a result of the altercation. Respondent did not provide any immediate medical attention or care to C.M. Respondent returned to the driver’s seat and began to drive. Respondent drove the bus to the San Carlos Park Fire Department station where C.M. received first aide from an Emergency Medical Technician. C.M.’s father was also notified and responded to the scene. Respondent attempted to defend his conduct by indicating that he would have been injured or he could have injured one of the students if he attempted to break up the altercations. This testimony is not credible. Respondent admitted that bus operators are prohibited from picking up students and that he should have used verbal prompts during the other incidents to urge the students to stop fighting. Respondent testified that prior to the events depicted on video, C.M. had responded to an earlier verbal prompt by the bus attendant to return to his seat. Respondent’s testimony is inconsistent and not entirely credible in this regard. In a further effort to mitigate Respondent’s conduct, Respondent’s counsel attempted to portray the students on the bus as completely uncontrollable and the District or school as unsupportive of the bus operators hired to transport these students. However, credible evidence showed that disruptive students were regularly suspended from the bus and from school. C.M. had proven to be a discipline problem on the bus. C.M. historically was confrontational and argumentative with the other students. Notwithstanding C.M.’s prior history of misconduct and violence on the bus, the District suspended C.M. from the bus for one day. Whether Respondent failed to take adequate corrective measures to ensure that C.M. did not repeat such actions prior to allowing him to continue riding the bus is irrelevant to this proceeding. However, Respondent was aware that at least one of the students on the bus had been previously disciplined for inappropriate conduct. Respondent had experience transporting Royal Palm students and had transported Royal Palm students previously during the 2007-2008 school year. In addition, Respondent stated that he had attended all of the training the District provided regarding the discipline and handling of disruptive students on a school bus. It is clear from the record that Respondent had been trained to deal with such students. Respondent mentioned the word “judgment” repeatedly throughout his testimony. Although judgment plays a role in the control of student behavior, the FDOE School Bus Driver’s Manual spells out the protocol for dealing with disruptive students. The first three things a bus operator is to do is to tell students to stop fighting, pull off the road to a safe place and call dispatch and have them contact parents. Judgment is not a part of any of the above instructions, and Respondent failed to follow two out of three requirements. He neither told the students to stop fighting nor called dispatch to inform them of the fights. The bus operator is then to go to the area of the fight, assess the situation, identify the students involved and attempt to gain control. If the operator cannot gain control the FDOE manual states that the operator should radio for help, remove other students from the area of the fight, intervene if the situation is life-threatening, or if not, to monitor and wait for assistance and use reasonable force to prevent injury to himself and the students. Respondent never attempted to gain control of the situation and then, when it did get out of control, he never radioed for help, removed other students from the area of the fight or used reasonable force to prevent injury to the students. Morgan testified that Respondent’s alleged violation of the policy for safety belts was “not the issue,” and the District was not seeking to discipline Respondent for anything related to the non-use of safety belts. Consequently, the District effectively withdrew this charge at hearing. Also, the District did not introduce as evidence the School District of Lee County Transportation Services Operator’s, Assistant’s and Monitor’s Handbook. The charge that Respondent did not follow the procedure as outlined in the Handbook therefore fails for lack of evidence. Respondent failed to comply with the District’s policy for preserving order on a special needs bus. He did not exercise his best judgment. His testimony as to why he did not physically intervene in the fights between C.M. and J.O. and J.S. for fear that he would injure himself or the students is not credible. Although he directed Ms. Wallace to write disciplinary referrals for the students that were fighting, this was inadequate. He did, however, obtain emergency medical care for C.M., and notified the dispatch center of the Transportation Department of the fight and the fact that he was required to divert his route of travel to the fire station for medical care. Immediately, upon his return to the bus compound, Respondent completed and filed with his supervisor an Incident Report detailing the events on the bus that afternoon. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent violated the policies recited in the Petition as a., b., c., d., e., and f. Since Respondent commenced working for the District, he received one probationary and seven annual performance assessments. With the exception of his 2007-2008 performance assessment, Respondent always scored at an “Effective level of performance observed,” except one score of “Inconsistently practiced” in his 2003-2004 assessment for the area targeted of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Respondent’s supervisor consistently recommended him for reemployment, including the 2008-2009 school year. In his 2007-2008 annual performance assessment, Respondent received a score of “Effective level of performance observed” in 29 out of a total of 32 areas targeted for assessment. Respondent received two scores of “Inconsistently practiced” for the areas of “Reports to work as expected unless an absence has been authorized” and “Reports to work on time as determined by route schedules,” and one score of “Unacceptable level of performance observed” for the area of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Although the District’s performance assessment form provides that Criteria marked “I” or “U” require additional documentation, there was no evidence of any such documentation. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was disciplined on two occasions. Respondent was involved in a physical altercation with another employee in February of 2008 and as a result he was suspended for three days without pay. In addition, Respondent was suspended for an additional three days without pay for causing a disruption on another bus operator’s route. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent and dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment for an altercation he was involved in that occurred on his bus.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence credited by the undersigned at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Wint has been employed by the School Board as a school bus driver for approximately 15 years. There was no evidence presented that Wint had been disciplined for any prior instances of misconduct as a bus driver. Wint is covered as an employee under the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (CBA), which provides that rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent . . . include . . . separation, suspension, dismissal and termination of employees for just cause. Pet. Ex. 1, § 3. School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, 4213, and 8600 were entered as exhibits and apply to Wint's employment.1/ Pet. Exs. 2–5. The School Board issued a Handbook for School Bus Drivers and Bus Aides (Handbook) for the 2017-2018 school year, which applies to Respondent's employment. The Handbook was admitted into evidence.2/ Pet. Ex. 6. School Bus Incident on October 10, 2017 To summarize, on October 10, 2017, Wint was transporting a large group of middle school students on his school bus. Due to a disruption by one of the students, Wint felt it was necessary to pull the bus over. Wint stopped the bus and went to the back to confront a 13-year-old, 8th-grade male student who had intentionally and unnecessarily opened the bus's emergency window, setting off the bus alarm.3/ A video of segments of the confrontation was recorded by students and entered into evidence. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Petitioner's Exhibit 16 is video coverage of the first part of the physical altercation between Wint and the male student. Petitioner's Exhibit 15 is video coverage of the second part of the physical altercation, after both had moved back down the bus aisle to return to their respective seats on the bus.4/ With respect to the details, the incident unfolded as follows: while the bus was in motion, the male student left his assigned seat without permission, went to the back of the bus, and opened the emergency exit window, causing the bus's audible alarm to sound.5/ Wint was required to immediately stop the bus to address the emergency alarm going off. Instead of directly calling dispatch as stated in the Handbook, Wint went to the back of the bus to confront the student, order him back to his assigned seat, assess the situation, and determine the best course of action. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16; Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c). Wint went to the back of the bus and confronted the male student. The altercation started when the male student rose up slightly out of the bus seat and punched Wint in the stomach several times. This evidence was uncontradicted. No other testimony or documents were offered to rebut this evidence. (These initial moments of the confrontation are not on the videos.) The first part of the cellphone video is shot from an elevated angle from the rear bus seat and starts by showing the two locked up, struggling in the back of the bus. Wint has his hands on the male student pulling him up forcefully and attempting to push the male student back up the aisleway to the front of the bus where his seat was located, and away from the other students. The male student pulled free from Wint's grasp and started up the aisleway. However, he turned around immediately and tried to shove Wint. Another male student interceded and restrained the male student by temporarily putting him in a headlock. When this occurred, Wint held back in the aisleway near the rear of the bus, watching and collecting himself. After the initial confrontation in the back of the bus, the second cellphone video picks up the action from a different angle (shooting from the middle of the bus towards the back). Several other students intervened to keep Wint and the male student separated. The male student tried to start up the altercation again and attempted to break through several students to get back at Wint. Wint is standing cornered in the back of the bus with his back to the emergency exit. While all this is going on, there is general pandemonium inside the bus with the other 20 to 25 students watching, yelling, or jeering at the scene. Notably, several of the other students appear frightened or alarmed and are very close to the altercation as it unfolds. The mid-bus cellphone video shows the male student turning around to head back up the bus aisleway. The male student is visibly angry, very upset, and is seen forcefully pounding his fists together defiantly as he walks. Wint is off camera, but the undersigned reasonably infers that Wint is behind the male student following him back up towards the front of the bus. As he walks up the aisleway in front of Wint, in an overt display of strong aggression and uncontrollable anger, the male student leans across a bus seat and violently punches a school bus window with his clenched fist.6/ Pet. Ex. 15. As Wint came down the narrow aisle behind the student and attempted to squeeze past him to continue to the driver's seat, Wint accidentally brushed against the male student.7/ At that point, the video shows the male student rapidly wheel around and the two begin to tussle, hands on each other, in the bus seat. Wint backs the male student up into the bus seat, closer to the window. Wint has both hands near, but not on, the neck area of the male student. There is no punching or swinging, just restraining and controlling. The more persuasive and credible evidence does not support the School Board's claim that Wint was intentionally choking the student with a pressure hold around his neck, nor holding the male student around the neck with his hands. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that Wint is attempting to control and restrain the student by holding him firmly by the collar of his jacket/sweatshirt.8/ At the end, when a female student jumped in to separate the two, Wint abruptly released his hold and headed back to his driver's seat. The cellphone video ends at that point. Although the evidence was conflicting, it revealed, and the undersigned credits, that Wint had previously notified the Miami-Dade County School District (District) in writing that this particular male student had been repeatedly disruptive on his bus. Specifically, Wint complained in writing on or about October 4, 2017, that the same male student had been improperly opening the window and throwing objects outside the bus. His report was on a standard reporting form required by the School Board. It is called Student Case Management Referral, No. 723119. This other reported incident occurred on or about September 29, 2017, several days before the altercation. Resp. Ex. 1. The Student Case Management Referral form turned in by Wint was initialed by a District employee on October 4, 2017, just days before this bus incident on October 10, 2017.9/ Susan Detmold is the district director for Transportation Services since 2013. Detmold viewed the two videos of the altercation between Respondent and the male student. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Detmold opined that it was inappropriate behavior for a bus driver to engage in the behavior exhibited in the videos. Detmold testified that if a student is not sitting in his assigned seat, then the school bus driver should give warnings and provide a misconduct referral to the District.10/ She also testified that in accordance with State Board Rule, only the school principals have the authority to discipline students.11/ Detmold testified that the Handbook provides drivers with procedures to follow when handling student misconduct on the bus. Pet. Ex. 6, §§ 10.06-10.07, pp. 94-96. The Handbook states that school bus drivers can stop the bus if the behavior is a serious one. Drivers will immediately contact their Dispatch Office by two-way radio and provide them with details of the situation. Drivers are to await the aid of the field operations specialist or school police. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c), p. 94. Wint disregarded this guideline in the Handbook and testified that he stopped the bus, went to the back of the bus to confront the student, but did not call Dispatch for school police until after the physical altercation with the male student had ended. The Handbook states in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.0171, State Board Rule, it is the responsibility of the bus driver [t]o maintain order and discipline, under the direction of the school principal, on the part of every passenger. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.03(i), p. 13. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted, by his actions, to maintain order and safety on the bus in the face of a very unruly, aggressive, and violent male student who was putting the safety of the bus, the bus driver, and other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus driver is responsible for the safety of the children in his/her care. A driver should place the safety, health, and well-being of his/her passengers above everything else while they are on the bus. Drivers shall maintain a professional attitude. Drivers should be patient, firm, fair, and friendly. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(e), p.15. The Handbook also states, in part, the school bus drivers will make a reasonable effort to deal with infractions of the rules of student conduct and will, to the best of their ability, maintain order and good behavior by students on their buses. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(o), p. 17. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted during this incident to maintain order and safety on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus drivers must not touch or put [their] hands on students. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.06(a), p. 21. The videos show that Wint did indeed lay his hands on the student, but the undersigned finds that this was done to restrain and control a very unruly and violent student, who presented a safety risk to the operation of the bus and other students on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, school bus drivers will not physically discipline . . . any student. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.07(d), p. 96. The videos do not show that Wint physically disciplined a student. Rather, he justifiably attempted to control a violent, angry, and uncontrollable student who placed his safety and the safety of other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Ultimate Findings of Fact Under the facts outlined herein, the undersigned finds that Wint's actions and conduct during this incident conformed with sections 1006.10 and 1012.45, Florida Statutes. The undersigned finds that the School Board's rules, policies, and Handbook provisions proscribe conduct authorized or required by sections 1006.10 and 1012.45 for a bus driver dealing with an unruly and violent student in an emergency situation. To the extent they do so, they are invalid and not controlling.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County immediately reinstating Respondent, Livingston Wint, to his position as school bus driver and provide him with back pay and other accumulated benefits since his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Seminole County School Board (Respondent) engaged in disparate treatment of Valeria Gaskin (Petitioner) such that the treatment of Petitioner constituted gender discrimination that resulted in a constructive discharge of Petitioner from her position with the school district.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was hired by Respondent on November 25, 1991, as a school bus driver. At all times material to this case, Petitioner’s performance of her duties as a school bus driver relate to the ultimate issues of law and fact to be resolved. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement entitled “Agreement with the Seminole County Bus Drivers’ Association, Inc. and the School Board of Seminole County (union contract).” Respondent is the entity charged by law to operate the School District of Seminole County, Florida, and in that capacity entered into the union contract. Petitioner was charged with the responsibility of reading the union contract and complying with its terms. Petitioner acknowledged that she was directed to review the contract and familiarize herself with it not less than annually. The union contract required Petitioner to comply with school board policies related to her employment duties. Kenneth Lewis is Respondent’s Director of Transportation under whose leadership all school buses are operated and maintained. In the structure of the Transportation Department, Mr. Lewis is followed by Julie Murphy, Assistant Director of Transportation, who, in turn, supervises Area Managers who perform the daily supervision of bus drivers. At all times material to this matter, Kathy Dent was the Area Manager under whom Petitioner served. It is undisputed that Respondent’s policy prohibits the use of cell phones while driving a school bus. All school bus drivers are made aware of the policy and the policy is reiterated in the Transportation Handbook (handbook) and is discussed repeatedly throughout the school year during department meetings. Petitioner acknowledged that she was provided a handbook and knew that Respondent’s policy prohibited the use of cell phones by school bus drivers while on a school bus. On or about October 3, 2007, Ms. Dent met with the bus drivers under her charge (including Petitioner) to remind them of the policy against cell phone use while on school buses. On November 30, 2007, Ms. Dent met with Petitioner individually to advise her again that cell phone use was not permitted while driving a school bus. On January 17, 2008, Petitioner was involved in a vehicular accident and was talking on a cell phone at the time of the crash. Petitioner acknowledged that she was using a cell phone while driving on January 17, 2008, and that such use violated school board policy. In fact, because Petitioner’s school bus carried a digital video camera that recorded Petitioner’s actions on January 17, 2008, Petitioner knew that she could be terminated for cell phone use while driving a school bus. More specifically, at the time of the accident the video captured Petitioner exclaiming, "I’m going to lose my job because I’m on the cell phone." Subsequent to the accident Petitioner was on workers’ compensation/leave but returned to work to face a five-day suspension without pay for her violation of the cell phone policy. The letter advising Petitioner of the proposed punishment clearly indicated that the recommendation for a five- day suspension without pay from the Transportation Department would be forwarded to the school superintendent for review and action. The school superintendent accepted the recommendation and Petitioner was advised that she would serve the unpaid suspension on May 13, 14, 20, 21, and June 3, 2008. These were the first dates available after Petitioner returned to work. On May 7, 2008, a date that Petitioner was driving her bus on her designated route, a student complained that an ipod had been stolen. To attempt to solve the complaint, a law enforcement officer requested that the Transportation Department pull the video from Petitioner’s bus to see if it could reveal who might have taken the device. To that end, Assistant Director Murphy contacted Ms. Dent to ask her to retrieve the video and review it for the purpose requested. Ms. Dent pulled the video hard drive from Petitioner’s bus and viewed the footage for the purpose directed. Ms. Dent discovered conduct she had not expected. First, the video clearly showed that Petitioner continued to use her cell phone while on the school bus. Even in the face of her impending suspension, Petitioner disregarded the school board policy and the directives from her supervisor. Petitioner continued to talk on a cell phone while on the school bus. Second, the video clearly showed unbecoming conduct between Petitioner and another school bus driver, William Boone. During the video Mr. Boone can be seen approaching Petitioner while she is seated at the driver’s position, place his hand and arm under her skirt for an extended period of time, and then later giving her an unspecified amount of money before departing. This conduct occurred while Petitioner was in line awaiting the start of her bus duties. Students were not on the bus at the time. Given the unexpected discoveries on the video, both Petitioner and Mr. Boone were called to the transportation office to meet with Mr. Lewis. Beforehand, however, the video from Mr. Boone’s bus was retrieved to determine if any inappropriate conduct could be seen on it. The video did not disclose any such conduct. Mr. Boone was not observed using a cell phone while on his bus and no additional unbecoming conduct was depicted. On May 9, 2008, a meeting was conducted with Petitioner, Ms. Murphy, Ms. Dent, and Mr. Boone. Later Mr. Lewis joined the group. Petitioner and Mr. Boone were advised that their unbecoming conduct had been captured by the bus video. Additionally, Petitioner was advised that her continued use of a cell phone while on the school bus had also been shown on the video. The video spoke for itself. The video contained irrefutable evidence of the conduct described above. Petitioner and Mr. Boone were given the opportunity to see the video for themselves. Both employees displayed embarrassment and concern. Mr. Lewis advised Petitioner that her continued use of the cell phone was in violation of the school board policy and advised both employees that the unbecoming conduct that appeared to be of a sexual nature was also not acceptable. At some point Petitioner claimed that she and Mr. Boone had been involved in a romantic relationship for an extended period of time. Mr. Boone expressed concern that his wife would find out about the incident. Mr. Boone denied that he was engaged in sexual conduct but accepted that it appeared that way. Further, Mr. Boone who held a previously untarnished personnel record did not want to lose his job. Mr. Lewis advised both Mr. Boone and Petitioner that he would likely recommend termination for both of them. He did not ask for their resignations, did not attempt to intimidate them in any manner, but expressed concern at their lack of judgment. As to Petitioner, since the video depicted her continued use of the cell phone (an act not applicable to Mr. Boone), Mr. Lewis expressed serious issue with Petitioner’s behavior. Nevertheless, no one demanded that Petitioner resign her position with the school district. Later in the day, Petitioner and her union representative met with Mr. Lewis to review the allegations. Since Mr. Lewis did not change his position and the union did not seem supportive of her cause, Petitioner became upset. Ms. Murphy offered to speak to Mr. Lewis on Petitioner’s behalf to see if she would be eligible for another employment position within the school district. Petitioner was afforded additional opportunities to meet with her union representative and to determine what, if any, response she would make regarding the allegations. At that point in time, Petitioner knew or should have known that the conduct depicted on the bus video would lead to the recommendation from Mr. Lewis to the school superintendent that Petitioner’s employment as a bus driver be terminated. Petitioner knew or should have known based upon the previous disciplinary action against her that her supervisors could not take disciplinary action against her based upon their authority. Moreover, for Petitioner to be terminated, the school superintendent would have to make the recommendation to the school board for its action. In this case, that recommendation never happened. Instead, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Ms. Murphy. Additionally, Petitioner stated to Ms. Murphy that she did not want Ms. Murphy to look for another employment opportunity within the school district for her. Petitioner’s letter of resignation selected May 30, 2008, as its effective date. It is undisputed that Petitioner continued to use a cell phone in violation of the school board policy despite being aware of the consequences for violation of the policy. Mr. Boone also faced disciplinary action for his part in the recorded conduct. As previously indicated, Mr. Boone had an unblemished record with the school district prior to the conduct described in this cause. He had worked for the school district almost 20 years without serious incident of any kind. Ultimately, Mr. Reichert, the Executive Director of Human Resources and Professional Standards for the Respondent, determined that there was insufficient evidence against Mr. Boone to recommend his termination to the school board. Instead, Mr. Boone was suspended without pay for five days. Mr. Boone did not challenge that decision and duly served his suspension. Mr. Boone did not admit that he had fondled Petitioner but did acknowledge that his conduct was unbecoming a school board employee. While more direct in admitting what occurred between Mr. Boone and herself, Petitioner also acknowledged that their behavior was inappropriate. Petitioner argues that both employees should have been treated similarly. Further, Petitioner maintains that Mr. Boone received better treatment, that is to say, less severe disciplinary measures, than she. Petitioner claims that her resignation was influenced by gender discrimination and ultimately a constructive discharge based upon the disparate treatment she received when compared to Mr. Boone. Petitioner did not file a complaint against the school board at the time of the incident claiming that her resignation was being coerced or was involuntarily tendered. At the time of resignation, Petitioner did not know what disciplinary action would be taken against Mr. Boone. Additionally, Petitioner knew or should have known that she could contest any disciplinary action brought against her and that she would be entitled to a hearing. Finally, Petitioner knew or should have known that her union could advise her and participate (as guided by their decision) in any disciplinary action against her based upon the terms of the union contract. Petitioner did not attempt to withdraw her letter of resignation prior to its effective date. Petitioner and Mr. Boone are no longer on friendly terms. Petitioner timely filed her claim with the FCHR seeking relief based upon gender-related disparate treatment. She maintains that conditions of her job environment constitute a constructive termination of her employment with Respondent. FCHR issued its determination of no cause and Petitioner timely pursued the instant administrative action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s claim for relief as she was not treated in a disparate manner, did not experience a hostile work environment, and did not establish that she was qualified to continue her position as a bus driver for Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 15th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Serita D. Beamon, Esquire Seminole County School Board Legal Service Department 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803 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 Bill Vogel, Ed.D. Superintendent Education Support Center 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's employment with the Lee County School District for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the acting superintendent of schools for the Lee County School District. References to "Petitioner" shall include Petitioner's predecessors and the Lee County School Board. Petitioner originally hired Respondent as a school bus driver in September 1974. Respondent worked in this capacity for Petitioner for the ensuing 23 years, except for the 1988-89 school year. During the time in question, Respondent worked under an annual contract ending June 30, 1997. During the one-year period ending June 30, 1997, Petitioner entered into a contract with Child Care of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Child Care) for the use of school property, including school buses. The purpose of the contract is to establish a program under which Child Care transports and supervises schoolchildren in after-school and summertime daycare programs. Under the contract, Petitioner provides Respondent with school buses and bus drivers. The contract prohibits the operation of the buses by anyone other than drivers "assigned by [Petitioner]." The contract provides that Petitioner shall charge Child Care for the actual costs of operating the buses, the "drivers' hourly salary," and an additional mileage fee. The contract imposes on Child Care the responsibility of carrying motor vehicle liability insurance for Child Care and Petitioner. The contract requires that Child Care "observe all rules and regulations promulgated by the School Board for its operation of school buses." Petitioner's rules prohibit bus drivers from carrying firearms while on Petitioner's property. The employment contract between the parties also requires Respondent to abide by all state and local laws and rules. Petitioner assigned Respondent as one of the bus drivers under the Child Care contract for the Christmas break in December 1996. On the morning of December 30, 1996, Respondent carried a loaded .22-caliber pistol onto one of Petitioner's school buses. The pistol was in Respondent's jacket, which he placed beside the driver's seat. Respondent then drove his normal route, picking up children and transporting them to Petitioner's public school that, under the contract, Child Care was operating while school was not in session. After finishing his morning route, Respondent left the bus at the public school with the loaded pistol still inside the jacket beside the driver's seat. Late in the afternoon of the same day, Respondent reboarded the bus, allowed the schoolchildren to reenter the bus, and drove his normal route. The loaded pistol remained in the jacket on the bus throughout the afternoon route. Although not charged with the personal use of Petitioner's property, Respondent did not return the school bus after he completed his afternoon route. Instead, he transported his own children to the residence of his estranged wife where Respondent threatened the woman with the pistol. After threatening the woman, Respondent drove the school bus, while still armed with the loaded pistol, to Petitioner's bus lot, where Respondent parked the bus and was apprehended by police, who found the loaded pistol beside the driver's seat, but no longer in a jacket. Respondent knew throughout the day of December 30, 1996, that he was in possession of a loaded firearm while operating Petitioner's school bus.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment contract of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Hament Kevin J. Hubbart Kunkel Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 970 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Jack Taylor, Acting Superintendent Lee County Public Schools 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
