Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Blondell Williams, was a fifth grade teacher at Poinciana Park Elementary School (PPES) in Miami, Florida. She was under a continuing contract as an elementary teacher for petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). She has been a teacher in the school system since 1981. On March 18, 1987 the Board voted to suspend Williams without pay effective that date for "misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination." Its decision resulted in Williams requesting an administrative hearing. She has remained suspended from her job without pay during the pendency of this proceeding. The charges are based upon three counts of alleged illicit misconduct as set forth in the Amended Notice of Charges issued on February 13, 1988. The alleged illicit conduct generally includes consumption of an alcoholic beverage on campus, sleeping in class, fraudulently obtaining a lunch, excessive tardiness and absenteeism, repeatedly failing to follow various orders, and demonstrating incompetency in the classroom. These charges will be discussed separately hereinafter. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages On February 2, 1987 respondent left campus during lunch hour to visit her father who was ill. When she returned, she was required to sign in on a roster which was in the reception area outside the principal's office. Williams entered the office area and went to the sign-in roster maintained by the principal's secretary, Delois Parker. Sitting next to Parker was Nena Brown, a system aide, and Mary White Blue, a teacher's aide. Williams was carrying a clear plastic cup containing a light pink beverage which she had brought from her car. The cup was then approximately one-quarter filled. After signing in, and while turning around, Williams accidentally spilled the beverage on Brown's leg and hand and on the carpet. Although Brown did not detect the nature of the beverage, Blue and Parker immediately detected the smell of alcohol. Another teacher, Silvia Munoz, then entered the room and also detected the smell of alcoholic beverages. At about the same time, Parker called the principal, Lawrence H. Crawford, out of his adjoining office to observe the incident. After examining the carpet, Crawford concluded that the beverage contained alcohol. Thereafter, he questioned Williams, who admitted she had drunk about a quarter of a cup of "White Mountain Cooler" taken from a bottle in her car. Crawford instructed Williams to bring the bottle to his office, and after examining the label on the bottle, he confirmed it was an alcoholic beverage. At hearing, Williams acknowledged that she had brought a cup of the beverage on campus during school hours and consumed a small amount. According to Williams, the bottle had been left in her car by a friend from the night before, but she denied knowing it contained any alcohol. This contention is not accepted as being credible since the beverage had an alcoholic odor, the label on the bottle reflected its alcoholic content, and Williams acknowledged she knew it was an alcoholic beverage at a conference for the record held on February 3, 1987. Accordingly, it is found that Williams was in the possession of, and consumed, an alcoholic beverage on campus during duty hours. However, the charge that Williams was "under the influence of an alcoholic beverage" while on duty was not established. Sleeping in Class On a warm spring day morning in 1986, the assistant principal of PPES, Terrance Armbruister, had an occasion to visit Williams' classroom. His visit was prompted by Crawford who had directed Armbruister to check out complaints that Williams was sleeping in class. After knocking on her classroom door, he unlocked it, entered and observed Williams with her head resting on her desk. He approached her but Williams did not move. Finally, she raised her head in a startled fashion as if she had just awoken. Armbruister then instructed her to wash her face and refresh herself. On or about March 28, 1986 P. J. Harden, an assistant principal in charge of curriculum at PPES, was monitoring the classroom next to Williams. The two classrooms were divided by a partition. Because of noise caused by students in Williams' classroom, Harden had difficulty monitoring the class. He pulled the partition open and observed Williams with her head on her desk asleep. He watched her sleep for approximately five minutes until a student shook Williams and awoke her. Williams apologized to Harden and promised it would not happen again. According to Harden, this was respondent's reply on every occasion that she was caught sleeping. On the afternoon of November 11, 1986 Harden again had an occasion to visit Williams' classroom while escorting a prospective teacher around the school. He found her asleep even though she was supposed to be teaching a class. To avoid embarrassment, Harden declined to allow the guest to enter the classroom. He then awoke Williams and told her to report to the principal's office. Harden stated that he found Williams sleeping in her classroom on a number of other occasions although he was unable to give specific dates. On each occasion, she was sent to the principal's office and an administrator would be assigned to cover her classroom. At no time did Williams ever give an excuse to Harden for her actions other than saying she had a second job which prevented her from getting a regular night's sleep. No Free Lunches The Amended Notice alleges that during school year 1986-87, Williams was guilty of "fraudulently obtaining and consuming school provided, student lunches." This charge stems from an incident on or about December 11, 1986 when respondent approached the cashier at the school cafeteria and told the cashier to give her a lunch without charge and to record it as being a free lunch given to a student. The cashier complied with Williams' instructions. By chance, the principal learned of this and confronted respondent with the charge. Williams admitted she had obtained an unauthorized free lunch. Her only excuse was that she was short of funds and had seen another teacher do it on one occasion. At Crawford's direction, Williams reimbursed the school for the meal. Excessive Tardiness and Absenteeism The school day at PPES began at 8:15 a.m. each day and lasted until 3:20 p.m. Teachers were expected to be in their classrooms by 8:20 a.m. so that they could greet their students before classes began at 8:30 a.m. Williams was aware of this requirement and was reminded of it from time to time by her supervisors. In addition, teachers were given thirty minutes for lunch. If a teacher left campus during lunch hour, he or she was expected to sign in and out on an attendance roster maintained in the principal's office. Even if a teacher left campus during lunch hour, the lunch period was still only thirty minutes, and any additional absence by a teacher required authorization from the principal's office. Williams was aware of this policy and understood that a failure to comply with these instructions was a violation of school policy. Under school policy, and in accordance with instructions in the teacher's handbook, a teacher was obligated to call the principal's secretary if he or she was going to be late to school. This call was expected to be made prior to 8:00 a.m. so that the principal could assign an administrator or other teacher to the classroom until the teacher reported to work. In addition, if a teacher knew he would be absent from school the following day, he was expected to telephone the principal's secretary before 2:00 p.m. on the day prior to the absence. If the absence was not known until after 2:00 p.m., the teacher was expected to telephone an assigned number between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. that evening, or at 7:00 a.m. on the day of the absence. This enabled the school administration to timely obtain a substitute teacher. Williams was aware of these requirements. During school year 1984-85, Harden was the assistant principal in charge of curriculum at PPES. His responsibilities included counseling and meeting with teachers who were tardy or absent. On or about October 19, 1984 Harden met with Williams concerning her "continuous" tardiness in reporting to school each morning. She was told that the school day for teachers began at 8:15 a.m. Despite this warning, Williams was late to work on October 19, November 29 and December 4, 1984. This prompted another meeting by Harden and respondent on December 4, 1984. Williams was given a memorandum advising her that she had to be at school by 8:15 a.m. each morning. At the meeting, Williams explained she had a second job which lasted late into the night and enabled her to catch only a "catnap" in the early morning hours. Harden instructed her to set her priorities in order and to adhere to the school attendance requirements. Because of continuing tardiness and absences from work, Williams received another memorandum from Harden on January 24, 1985. The memorandum cited Williams for leaving campus on January 12 and 17, 1985 without authorization and being late to work on January 17. The two held a conference for the record on January 31, 1985 concerning these problems. On March 7, 1985 Crawford sent Williams a memorandum stating that he had "serious concerns about (her) tardiness and (her) habit of illegally leaving the campus during the school day." Another conference for the record was held on March 15. At the conference Williams again gave an excuse of having a second job as well as having problems with a boyfriend. She was told that she must comply with attendance requirements and not let the second job interfere with her primary job of teaching. On July 18, 1985 Williams received a memorandum from Harden for reporting late to work on July 17 and missing a homeroom assignment. The memorandum advised her to immediately remedy the situation and offered to help her if assistance was needed. Despite her poor attendance record, Williams was given an "acceptable" rating and recommended for employment in her annual evaluation rendered on May 17, 1985. There was, however, a comment that a "conference for the record for tardies" had been held during the school year. Williams' attendance and punctuality record did not improve the following school year. She was given at least five memoranda between July, 1985 and January, 1986 concerning her tardiness or absences. She was counseled by Armbruister on October 22, 1985 and specifically told to review the faculty handbook concerning attendance requirements. Armbruister spoke with her again concerning the same problems on November 12, 1985. Because the problem persisted, school officials felt compelled to hold a conference for the record on January 27, 1986. At that time, Williams attributed her difficulties to a second job, problems with a boyfriend, a "peeping tom" in the neighborhood who kept her from sleeping, and no telephone. She admitted she was wrong and indicated she would try to do better. Despite this meeting, Williams took an unauthorized leave at lunch on January 31. This prompted a conference with Armbruister the same day to discuss the latest incident. Williams was given a memorandum advising her to review a summary of the conference for the record held four days earlier and to follow the school's recommendations. In school year 1986-87, Williams' erratic attendance and lack of punctuality continued. As of December 16, 1986, which was roughly halfway through the school year, Williams was late or absent forty-three out of seventy- five workdays. Because of this continuing pattern, a conference for the record was held by respondent and Crawford on October 9, 1986. Williams was found to be deficient in the area of professional responsibility and placed on prescription until December 19. This meant she had to fulfill certain conditions by the end of the prescriptive period. Among other things, Williams was required to arrive daily at work by 8:00 a.m., to timely telephone the office about any absences, to submit a written statement explaining each absence, to report to an administrator or office staff member upon arrival to school each morning, to have up-to-date emergency lesson plans, and to read the teacher contract and teacher assessment handbook. In the month of January, 1987, Williams was tardy on eleven mornings and absent from work on six days. In February, she was tardy the morning of February 2. This was also the day that Williams brought the alcoholic beverage on campus during lunch hour. An emergency conference for the record was held the following day, which was her last day at PPES. Failure to Follow Orders The Amended Notice alleges that, during school years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, Williams committed acts of gross insubordination, including . . . repeatedly failing to follow ordered procedures . . . for reporting absences, . . . procedures concerning her morning arrivals at school, . . . procedures documenting absences, . . . procedures concerning lesson plans, records and student report cards, . . . orders to stay awake while (performing) . . . assigned duties, . . . orders concerning tardiness after lunch, (and) . . . orders to not leave the school campus other than during her lunch period. After being placed on prescription on October 10, 1986, Williams was required to fulfill certain requirements enumerated in finding of fact 18. However, she failed to notify an administrator or office staff member upon arrival at school each morning from October 13 through December 15 except for the week of October 13. She also failed to submit a written explanation of her absences on October 27 and 29, November 3, 18, 24 and 25, and December 2 and 3, 1986. She failed further to timely advise the school of absences on October 21 and 29, November 24 and December 2 and 3, 1986. All such failures were in direct contravention of the written prescription. Although Williams contended such violations were not willful, it is found they were intentional. Other than a reference to Williams' failure to timely prepare lesson plans during an undisclosed part of school year 1985-86, and a prescription requiring her to prepare emergency lesson plans in October, 1986, the Board did not establish that Williams repeatedly failed to prepare lesson plans, report cards and other unnamed "records." Williams was observed sleeping in class on two specific occasions during the school years in question. On a third occasion, an administrator observed her with her head down on her desk as if asleep but could not say for sure that she was sleeping. Assistant principal Harden also said Williams was caught sleeping on a number of other occasions but did not identify the dates. There being only three specific times on which Williams was found sleeping, it is found that no direct disobeyel of orders occurred on the part of respondent as to sleeping in class. Williams was given repeated instructions since 1984 to be punctual for work each day. Despite these orders, she continued to be late on numerous occasions between September 1984 and February, 1987. She also failed to timely advise the school concerning her absences or tardiness on many occasions in spite of specific instructions to do so. Finally, after having received a number of oral and written directives, she nonetheless left school on several occasions for more than thirty minutes during the lunch hour without authorization. Incompetency Respondent taught a Chapter One class at PPES. This class is comprised of students needing additional training and instruction in basic skills such as reading and mathematics. It is smaller than a regular class so that the teacher may give the students added instruction and attention. Because of respondent's repeated absenteeism and tardiness over the course of the school years, the children in respondent's class were denied the continuity of their instructional program. This also meant the lesson plans could not be carried out as prepared on those days on which she was late. Therefore, the students continually received a reduced period of instruction. This in turn impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's Case In 1982, respondent's father became gravely ill and was thereafter bedridden at her mother's home until his death in 1987. According to Williams, her mother cared for him during the day and Williams took her turn at night. She also visited him on occasion during her lunch hour. As a result, she was required to spend long waking hours during the night with her father and to overextend her lunch hour while visiting him during the day. Williams attributed her attendance problems and her falling asleep to the demands of her father. However, Williams never told her superiors of this problem nor did she obtain authorization to leave campus during lunch hour. Just prior to her separation from PPES Williams acknowledged to school officials that she had a drinking problem. She also agreed to attend a clinic for problem drinkers. At hearing she denied having such a problem and said her earlier admission was given solely for the purpose of saving her job. However, she acknowledged attending a drinking clinic for a few days in early 1987. At the school's request, she also took a physical examination in February, 1987. The results are not of record. Williams contended that other teachers were late but were not written up. However, no proof as to this contention was submitted. The Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) is the standard measure of teacher performance in Dade County. There was no evidence of any negative TADS evaluation of respondent despite her repeated tardiness and absences from school. Respondent's last TADS evaluation covered the period up to and including March 25, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination and incompetency as set forth in this Recommended Order and that she be dismissed as an employee of petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1456 Petitioner: Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 5, 17 and 25. Covered in findings of fact 12-15 and 25. Covered in findings of fact 12-19. Covered in findings of fact 12-19. Covered in findings of fact 12-19. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in findings of fact 25 and 27. Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Accepted to the extent the same is covered in the findings; the remainder is rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected since respondent's deficiencies constituted incompetency. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected since respondent admitted knowing that the beverage was alcoholic in nature. Partially covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Rejected since respondent admitted having a drinking problem during her conference with Dr. Gil on February 3, 1987. Rejected since the Board's basis for dismissing respondent was based on other factors. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire Fontainebleau Park Office Plaza Suite 2A-3 175 Fontainebleau Boulevard Miami, Florida 33172 Lorraine C. Hoffman, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the following facts are found: Respondent Kenneth Neil Watts has been employed by the Levy County School Board for ten years. He has continuously been assigned to Yankeetown School where he has taught seventh and eighth grade math, science and physical education. He has been on continuing contract status since 1975. Prior to coming to Yankeetown, he had an additional three years of teaching experience. On August 20, 1981, the first day of school for students, respondent came to school a little late. Harvey Markham, the Principal of Yankeetown School, believed that he smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. He had a conference with respondent and the building representative for the Levy County Educational Association, Barbara Delores Gaitanis, was present at this conference. Mr. Markham accused respondent of being inebriated and respondent denied that he had been drinking any alcoholic beverage: Respondent became very upset from his conversation with Mr. Markham, did not feel that he could go into his classroom in that upset condition and asked if he could be relieved from his duties on that day. Respondent then drove himself home. Nothing was placed in respondent's personnel file concerning this incident. Ms. Gaitanis did not notice any smell of alcohol from the respondent, and did not notice anything unusual about respondent's physical appearance. Mr. Markham believed he smelled alcohol and noted that respondent's face was flushed and his eyes were bloodshot. Respondent was not slurring his speech or staggering. On December 9, 1981, respondent did not report for work. This was the first occasion when respondent had not given prior adequate notice of his absence. The school called respondent's residence, respondent answered the phone and said that he had overslept and would be in later. Respondent's words during that conversation were somewhat slurred. Respondent's wife later called in and reported that respondent would not be in that day. Mr. Markham asked respondent to go to a doctor that day and to bring him a note from the doctor. Respondent did go to a doctor and brought Mr. Markham a paid receipt for the visit. Two students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on or about December 18, 1981, the last day of school before the Christmas holidays. These students did not notice any change in respondent's physical appearance or behavior on that occasion. Three other students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on several occasions. They could not recall the dates. On such occasions, respondent showed no difference in behavior or physical appearance. Two teachers who had worked with respondent for ten years and saw him on a daily basis, sometimes in the morning, at lunchtime and again at the end of the school day, never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. One of these teachers specifically remembered seeing respondent on the last day before the Christmas holidays. Three teachers' aides employed at Yankeetown School for 6, 4 and 2 1/2 years respectively, observed respondent on a daily basis--sometimes three times a day--and never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. Twelve students who had respondent as a teacher for two or three periods a day on a daily basis during the 1981-82 school year never noticed the odor of alcohol from the respondent. Many of these students had respondent as a teacher during the first and second periods of the day and would have been present both on the day preceding the Christmas holidays and on April 19th, the day of his suspension. On April 19, 1982, Principal Markham's secretary noticed the smell of alcohol on respondent's breath as he was taking roll in his classroom. Mr. Markham called respondent to his office and building representative Gaitanis was again present. Markham accused respondent of being intoxicated, respondent denied that he had been drinking, and Markham then gave respondent the option to take a breathalizer examination. Respondent replied that he would do so if he could do it locally and did not have to travel to Bronson. Bronson is some thirty-five miles from Yankeetown and respondent did not have a car on April 19th. Mr. Markham did not order respondent to take the breathalizer exam. Mr. Markham sent respondent to the teachers' lounge and then asked his secretary to drive respondent home. Ms. Gaitanis noticed no odor of alcohol during the conference between respondent and Mr. Markham. A teacher's aide who saw respondent in the teachers' lounge at about 10:00 a.m. on April 19th and sat three to four feet away from him noticed no odor of alcohol. Mr. Markham admitted that respondent did not slur his speech, stagger or otherwise appear intoxicated in his behavior. He did observe that respondent's eyes were bloodshot and his face was flushed. Mr. Markham's secretary smelled the odor of alcohol while driving respondent home, but did not notice anything peculiar in respondent's behavior or appearance. Respondent does not like and does not drink hard liquor. He sometimes drinks a beer or two on the weekends or in the afternoon or evening after school. Respondent does not drink beer or alcohol at school or in the mornings before school. His eyes are often bloodshot and he occasionally has trouble sleeping at night. On Sunday, April 18th, respondent had been at the beach in the sun all day. Yankeetown is a small town with a population of approximately 500. If a resident had a drinking problem, it is probable that it would be common knowledge throughout the community. There was no testimony from parents, teachers or other community members that they had heard that respondent came to school intoxicated or with alcohol on his breath, or otherwise had a drinking problem. Principal Markham's "Instructional Evaluation" of respondent for the 1981-82 school year was prepared on March 18, 1982. As was true for the previous years' evaluations, respondent received a "Currently Satisfactory," the highest rating available, in all areas under the headings of "Teaching Competencies" and "Personnel and Professional Qualities." The subareas in which respondent was rated included "planning," "teaching techniques," "classroom management," "accurate and punctual in routine duties, records and reports" and "complies with school, county and state policies." Respondent took eleven full days and five half days of sick and personal leave during the 1981-82 school year. Other than the one December 9th occasion, respondent gave adequate notice of his absences. His leave days were always approved and he was paid for each of them. Mr. Markham felt that respondent's absences were a "minor" problem and he would not have recommended termination on this basis alone. He discussed respondent's absences with him on one occasion, but did not place anything in writing in respondent's personnel file. Respondent prepared lesson plans for substitutes to use during his absences and these plans were submitted to Principal Markham. Markham recalled discussing inadequate lesson plans with respondent on one or two occasions, but admitted that he had not previously placed much emphasis on lesson plans. No memoranda were placed in respondent's personnel file concerning lesson plans, and respondent could not recall any discussion with Mr. Markham regarding the adequacy of his lesson plans.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the April 30, 1982, "Recommendation of Dismissal" be DISMISSED, and that respondent be immediately reinstated with back pay from May 7, 1982, the date of his suspension without pay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Anthony Cleveland General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Francis E. Rowell Superintendent School Board of Levy County, Florida Post Office Box 128 Bronson, Florida 32621-0128
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, an African-American male, as a paraprofessional, non-instructional employee at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent School Board is the body politic responsible for the administration of public schools within the Suwannee County School District. Petitioner was a member of the non-instructional chapter of the United Teachers of Suwannee County, Florida, and was subject to the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement between that organization and Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner’s employment was subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Continuing Contract of Employment Non-Instructional Education Support Employees of the Public Schools executed between Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner worked at the Suwannee Primary School in Live Oak, Florida. Petitioner’s work schedule required him to work Monday through Friday of each work week. Petitioner’s duty day started at 7:30 a.m. and ended at 2:40 p.m. Marilyn K. Jones, the principal of the Primary School, was Petitioner’s immediate supervisor. Although their surnames are the same, Principal Jones and Petitioner are not related. Petitioner approached Jones on February 14, 2005, and spoke with her regarding his recent employment with a state prison. Petitioner informed Jones that he had been hired as a corrections officer and that he was required to attend orientation and training sessions. Petitioner informed Jones that the initial orientation and training sessions were held during times he was required to work at the Primary School. Petitioner asked for a couple days off from his work at the Primary School to attend these initial sessions. Petitioner was hopeful that once the training and orientation sessions were completed, his work hours with the state prison would be from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and would not interfere with his employment with Respondent. Jones informed the Petitioner that he could use personal leave time that he had accumulated to attend the orientation and training sessions. Jones requested that Petitioner keep her posted regarding the days he would be absent and directed him to complete and submit the forms required to take leave prior to the actual absences so that arrangements could be made for substitute personnel to assume Petitioner's duties. Petitioner did not, however, submit the proper leave forms and the training period at the prison was longer than the originally expected. Additionally, after discussions with the payroll Department, Jones learned that the Petitioner did not have enough accumulated leave time to allow for his previous absences. Jones and the Petitioner had a telephone conversation on March 5, 2005. Jones informed Petitioner that he had been absent more times than their initial understanding, that he had failed to submit the leave forms in advance of the days he would be absent, and that he did not have leave time available. Petitioner apologized for the additional time that he had been absent and again noted that he thought that after the first few days of training, his work at hours at the prison would be from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Jones told Petitioner that his continued absences would be unauthorized and that she did not want him to be fired for taking unauthorized leave. Jones informed the Petitioner that if he wished to resign, he could submit his resignation to her. On March 7, 2005, Petitioner met with Jones and her assistant principal Betty Ann Sumner, along with Sheryl Daniels, the president of the Teacher’s Union, to discuss Petitioner’s absences. Petitioner expressed his desire to work three days a week at the Suwannee Primary School and the other two days at his job with the prison. Jones reiterated her previous statements to Petitioner that she was concerned for him and did not want the School Board to terminate his employment based on his absenteeism. Jones informed Petitioner that he had taken days off from work without providing any advance notice and advised that in the event of future absences, Petitioner must submit the appropriate forms in advance. When Petitioner raised the subject of a leave of absence until the fall semester so that he could schedule his employment with the prison and Respondent to avoid time conflicts, he was referred to Respondent's district office. Subsequently, Petitioner requested a 10 week leave of absence with the Superintendent of the Suwannee County School District, J. Walter Boatright, to continue to pursue training as a corrections officer. Under School Board policy, an absence in excess of five days has to be approved by the School Board. Boatright declined to bring Petitioner’s request for leave to the Suwannee County School Board based on his view that the Board’s policies did not allow an employee an extended leave of absence to receive training for an unrelated second job, that the end of the school year was approaching, and that the School District needed the presence of all of its employees. As established by Boatright's testimony, Respondent often has difficulty finding substitute personnel when its employees are absent for wholly legitimate reasons. Boatright informed Petitioner that he would not recommend that the School Board approve Petitioner’s request and would not bring Petitioner’s request to the School Board for its consideration. Additionally, Boatright recommended that the School Board deny Petitioner’s request for leave for the days that he had already been absent. Petitioner never personally appeared before the School Board to submit his request for personal leave. After Boatright's decision was communicated to him, Petitioner was again absent without leave on several occasions. Petitioner met with Boatright on March 24, 2005. At that meeting, Boatright warned Petitioner that he faced disciplinary action, including termination from employment if he continued to be absent from his non-instructional position without leave. In response to Boatright’s warnings, Petitioner said, “Anybody can do what I do” and suggested that Boatright simply obtain a substitute teacher to fill his position. Following Petitioner's remarks, Boatright informed Petitioner that his role with the Suwannee County School District as a paraprofessional, non-instructional employee was important. Sheryl Daniels, the president of the United Teachers of Suwannee County was also present at the meeting on March 24, 2005, with Boatright and Petitioner. Daniels asked Boatright to reconsider Petitioner’s request for leave because Petitioner had been a good employee in the past and this should merit some additional consideration. Boatright, however, denied Petitioner’s request for leave. Later, Petitioner received a letter dated April 20, 2005, from Boatright, confirming and reiterating the warning delivered to Petitioner during the March 24, 2005. In this letter, Boatright, advised Petitioner “that any further absence without leave on your part after the receipt of this letter will result in my recommendation to the Suwannee County School Board for your termination.” Subsequent to Petitioner’s receipt of the April 20, 2005, letter from Superintendent Boatright, Petitioner was again absent without leave in late April and in May of 2005. On April 28, 2005, Petitioner received his annual employment evaluation. The evaluation was performed by Jones, his principal. An employee’s overall evaluation rating is determined by adding the employees’ scores in seven different categories. Although Petitioner received an overall rating of “Effective,” Petitioner’s rating with respect to his professional responsibilities was “Needs Improvement.” Jones’ evaluation noted that although Petitioner did a good job in the computer lab, his frequent absences were a concern and that student behavior had deteriorated in Petitioner’s classes when he was absent. On April 28, 2005, Boatright filed a petition with the School Board to terminate Petitioner’s employment. A hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2005. The School Board rescheduled the May 15, 2005, hearing, however, when Petitioner requested additional time to prepare for the hearing. Thereafter, Petitioner was served with an Amended Petition for Termination of Employment filed by Boatright. The Superintendent’s Petition for Termination of Employment charged Petitioner with violating Suwannee County School Board Policy Section 6.22, which states, “[a]ny employee of the District who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of the absence and the employee contract shall be subject to cancellation by the School Board.” By letter dated May 31, 2005, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Respondent. In that letter, Petitioner wrote that he was submitting his resignation due to the denial of his request for an unpaid leave of absence and the need to avoid further damage to his reputation. Petitioner also stated in the letter that he thought he had been the subject of discrimination and was left with no alternative but to resign his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 5th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mike Jones Post Office Box 372 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Andrew J. Decker, IV, Esquire Andrew J. Decker, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1288 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools recommended that the Respondent enter into a professional services contract with the Petitioner, Gene Starr?
Findings Of Fact Gene A. Starr has been continuously employed by the School Board of Hamilton County as an agriculture teacher since the 1985-1986 school year. On March 18, 1988, the principal of Hamilton County High School recommended to the Superintendent of the Respondent that the Respondent enter into a professional service contract with Mr. Starr. At a meeting of the Respondent held on April 12, 1988, the Superintendent made recommendations to the Respondent concerning reappointment of a number of employees. The Superintendent specifically recommended that Mr. Starr receive a professional service contract. A motion was made and seconded by members of the Respondent to accept the recommendations of the Superintendent. The following events took place, as reported in the minutes of the Respondent's April 12, 1988, meeting: At the Board's request, Mr. Lauer [the Superintendent] appeared to discuss the recommendation of Gene Starr. The consensus of the Board was that the agriculture program has not progressed as per expectations, and that Mr. Starr's coaching duties conflict with his duties as an agriculture teacher. It was the opinion of some members that there should be more emphasis on crop production and harvesting and on supervision of home projects. Following the discussion of the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr, the Superintendent "asked for and was granted permission to withdraw his recommendation on & Mr. Starr and to resubmit another recommendation on him at a subsequent meeting." The Superintendent then "amended his recommendation to omit Mr. Starr" and the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations was amended to reflect this change. The Respondent then approved the Superintendent's recommendations, as amended. The Respondent did not consider whether there was "good cause" to reject the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr. At a May 10, 1988, meeting of the Respondent the Superintendent recommended that Mr. Starr be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1988-1989 school year and that Mr. Starr serve in the instructional position for a fourth year on annual contract instead of being granted a professional services contract. The recommendation was withdrawn on advice of counsel for the Respondent. At a May 23, 1988, meeting of the Respondent Mr. Starr and the Respondent agreed that Mr. Starr would agree to a fourth year on annual contract, "subject to and without prejudice to a formal hearing on his right to a professional services contract." Mr. Starr was informed of this action in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Starr filed a Petition for a Formal Hearing challenging the Respondent's action with regard to the Superintendent's recommendation to the Respondent that Mr. Starr receive a professional services contract. In the Petition, Mr. Starr specifically requested the following relief: That the matter be assigned to the State of Florida Division of Administrative hearings [sic] for the assignment of a hearing officer. That a formal hearing be held on this particular petition pursuant to Sec. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. as to Petitioner's entitlement to employment under a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools be accepted by the School Board of Hamilton County unless the School Board of Hamilton County concludes that there is good cause for rejecting the recommendation. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4116 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-9. 3 10. 4-8 Statement of events which occurred at the formal hearing and some of the arguments advanced by the parties at the formal hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Owen Hinton, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment contract with Petitioner should be terminated for violation of School Board policies.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the local school board responsible for hiring, firing and overseeing all employees working for the School Board and/or within the Lee County Public School system (also called the "School District" herein). Respondent is an employee of the School Board, serving as an electronics field technician in the School Board's maintenance department. Respondent has worked for the School Board off and on since 1996, when he was a school bus driver. He has been an electronics technician since 2000. In that position, Respondent oversees the maintenance and repair of clocks, alarms, intercoms, scoreboards, sound and lighting systems, burglary systems, and the like for all schools within the School District. Respondent has never received any form of discipline from the School Board. His record is clear, and he has been commended for his work. His work ethic was viewed by others as consistent with that of similarly-situated employees (although Respondent may take more breaks than others). School District maintenance workers work an eight-hour work day, commencing at 7:00 a.m. (per provisions of the SPALC Contract and Collective Bargaining Agreement). Each worker is expected to arrive at the maintenance area on Canal Street (hereinafter "Canal Street") and be ready to commence work by 7:00 a.m., each morning. The work day generally starts with a briefing of sorts to make sure each worker is aware of his/her tasks for the day. After the briefing, workers pick up tools and supplies from various locations around the Canal Street area and then proceed to the first school site requiring performance of an assigned task. A work day for Respondent could involve driving to any one of the numerous school campuses within the School Board's jurisdiction. Workers are given 30 minutes for lunch each day, including the time it takes to drive to and from the lunch site. In addition, workers are allowed two 15-minute breaks, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. Again, the break time includes the time taken to drive to a break site, if the employee decides to take a break at other than the place he/she is working at that time. Employees are not permitted to do personal business or make unauthorized stops during the work day without prior permission from a supervisor. Respondent is a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve and currently holds the rank/level of E5. He attends regular weekend drills each month and also spends two weeks each year on temporary active duty. Respondent has been in the reserves throughout his tenure with the School Board. There has never been an issue between Petitioner and Respondent concerning Respondent's military status or his taking two weeks each summer to attend to his military duties. Respondent is proud of his military service, as evidenced by the fact that he wore his military uniform during both days of the final hearing.1 In May 2008, Respondent spent 17 days on active duty, serving in Bahrain. This was Respondent's active duty requirement for calendar year 2008. However, he then volunteered for an additional period of active duty in July 2008. This second active duty stint was done in furtherance of his military career and at the suggestion of a superior officer. It was strictly voluntary, but Respondent felt somewhat compelled to "volunteer" based on his superior's comments. Respondent then did his second active duty stint beginning June 28, 2008, and ending July 27, 2008. This period of time coincided with the maintenance department's busiest time for its electronics technicians. The maintenance department annually used the time in between school terms to get various maintenance items completed while it would be the least disruptive to students in the classrooms. The summer period is used to "clean up" things that remain pending from the school year. It is clear that Respondent's supervisors were not happy that Respondent had volunteered to be absent during this busy time, but Respondent was allowed to go on active duty anyway. This left the School Board short-handed as to its needed electronics technicians for that period of time. Respondent's supervisor expressed concern to Respondent about this second period of active duty, specifically that it was occurring during the summer break. Respondent recognized the strain this additional leave put on his co-workers and apologized for that fact. Respondent assured his supervisor it would not happen again. Upon his return from the voluntary active duty, Respondent was told that he was being placed on "suspension of driving privileges," meaning that he could not drive School Board vehicles until further notice. This suspension was based on information gleaned from review of data generated by a new tracking system being used in School Board maintenance vehicles (which will be discussed below). Respondent is of the opinion that the suspension was some sort of retaliation for his having gone on the second active duty tour during June and July. The Global Positioning System--Background Beginning in May 2008, the School Board decided to install global positioning system (GPS) devices in all of its maintenance vehicles. The installation began with 50 randomly selected vehicles of the 150-vehicle fleet. The purpose of the GPS devices was to track School Board vehicles and assure that all vehicles were being utilized properly and in accordance with School Board policies. This measure was prompted by repeated complaints from the public about maintenance vehicles being seen involved in non-school activities or at non-school locations. The GPS system in Respondent's maintenance vehicle was installed on May 22, 2008. The signal from the GPS was instantaneous, but required calibration and installation of certain software before it could be effectively utilized. The GPS became fully functional on June 20, 2008, at 10:07 a.m. The GPS system tracked the location, speed, and duration of stops for the vehicle. This data was maintained on a computer server which could print maps showing a vehicle's movements on any given day or time. The maps could be annotated with the vehicle's speed, length of stay at any one location, and actual driving route. On or about June 27, 2008, William G. Moore, director of School Support for the School Board, was being given a course on the use of the new GPS system and how it worked. During his training, Moore randomly selected some vehicles to review, solely for the purpose of ascertaining how the system tracked and recorded information. One of the vehicles Moore randomly selected was vehicle No. 423, which turned out to be Respondent's work van. Moore did not know Respondent personally and did not know to which of the 150 or so School Board vehicles any one person was assigned. Moore then selected June 26, 2008, randomly as a record to review as part of his training. The June 26, 2008, record for vehicle No. 423 immediately raised red flags in Moore's mind. He observed that the vehicle was at a non-school site for over three hours (although it was later determined to be a training site and a legitimate stop). The vehicle was also shown entering a residential community (although again it was later determined that the driver had permission for that trip). However, based on his initial determination that something was amiss and not having any explanation for those instances, Moore decided to more fully examine the route history for vehicle No. 423. First, he determined that this vehicle was assigned to Respondent. (The vehicle will hereinafter be referred to as the work van.) Moore's further investigation turned up a number of questionable stops and trips by the work van during the period June 20 through June 27, 2008. The findings of his investigation will be set forth in pertinent part below on a day-by-day basis, coupled with explanations from Respondent as to each day's activities. Friday, June 20, 2008 At 10:07 a.m. (when the GPS first started working), the work van was departing from Ft. Myers High School ("Ft. Myers High") en route to Estero High School ("Estero"). Upon arrival at Estero, the van remained parked for five minutes, then left the parking lot and drove around the building to the front entrance of Estero for a period of one minute. Leaving Estero, the work van headed to a residential neighborhood known as the Bimini Circle Subdivision, where it stayed for 11 minutes. The work van then proceeded to a 7-11 Store where it remained for 35 minutes. The next stop was back at Estero where the work van remained for one hour and 46 minutes. At 2:00 p.m., the work van left Estero, stopped briefly at the 7-11 Store, then returned to Canal Street at 2:59 p.m. The School Board perceived several violations of policy gleaned from the information on the GPS for the work van during the June 20, 2008, work day: First, the work van was at Estero for a total of two hours and 13 minutes on this date. The total time at Ft. Myers High for this date is not detailed by the GPS, but would presumably be approximately two and a half hours, i.e., allotting time for driving from Canal Street up until the GPS turned on at 10:07 a.m. Respondent's daily activity log indicates five hours at Estero and three hours at Ft. Myers High. Respondent took two unauthorized stops at a store, presumably for personal reasons, and then spent 11 minutes at a residence during work hours. Respondent took in excess of 30 minutes for his lunch hour (35 minutes at a location, plus an undisclosed amount of time driving to and from that location). Respondent took a longer route back to Canal Street than necessary, presumably wasting time. (Employees were expected to work the entire day, then return to Canal Street precisely at 3:00 p.m. A 30-minute debriefing session, return of tools, etc., would occur and then employees would be released from duty at 3:30 p.m. Employees were told repeatedly NOT to return to Canal Street until 3:00 p.m.) Respondent explained his actions and refuted the School Board's concerns as follows: Upon leaving Canal Street that morning, Respondent went directly to Ft. Myers High and remained there until 10:07 a.m. The rest of his day, approximately five hours, was dedicated to work at Estero, but included travel time, breaks, and lunch. The two hours and 13 minutes actually at Estero should be supplemented by driving time to the school from Ft. Myers, driving time to his breaks and lunch, driving time to and from his personal errand, and driving time back to Canal Street. Respondent remembers asking for and receiving permission to stop by his wife's house (the residence in the Bimini Circle Subdivision) to retrieve his wallet. The stops at 7-11 Stores were for lunch and two allowable breaks. The longer route back to Canal Street was taken in order to avoid an accident on the shorter route. During June of 2008, technicians would fill out their daily work logs using rounded estimates of time. They made no attempt to precisely state exact periods of time spent at any one job site. Rather, the daily logs were a very general statement of which job sites had been involved in the employee's work that day. (This procedure has subsequently changed, but was extant at all times relevant hereto.) It is clear Respondent took a longer than allowable lunch break on this date. Further, the time taken for breaks, if drive time was included, was in excess of the allotted amounts. It is clear Respondent was actually at Estero for only about half the time recorded on the daily work log. However, under the procedures in place at that time, the work log time entry was not dispositive of his actual time at the site. Monday, June 23, 2008 On this date, the School Board gleaned the following violations of policies from its review of the GPS log: Respondent was at Estero for two hours and nine minutes, but his daily work log indicates six hours at Estero and two hours at Gateway Elementary. The work van made stops at McDonalds and Bank of America on the way to Estero, then at the Bimini Circle address for eight and a half minutes after leaving Estero. Petitioner says any stops for personal business are strictly prohibited while in a School Board vehicle. After a 47-minute stop at Dairy Queen, the work van then proceeded to Gateway where it stayed for approximately two hours. Upon leaving Gateway, the work van stopped at Home Depot--an unauthorized stop--for about 18 minutes. Respondent provides the following explanation and rebuttal concerning the School Board's concerns for that day: Again, his work sheet indicates the correct amount of time actually at Gateway. The remainder of his day, including all travel, breaks, and lunch, was allocated on this time sheet to Estero no matter how long he was actually there. The stops at McDonalds and Bank of America were simply to allow his co-worker (Sheryl Reed) to get an iced tea and to get money for lunch. Respondent maintains that these types of stops were not specifically prohibited and were common practice. Respondent maintains the stop at his wife's house was his break time (although a stop at McDonalds and Bank of America had already occurred that morning). The 47-minute lunch hour was caused by Respondent simply losing track of time. That is, he admits that it was a longer lunch break than allowed, but it was not done intentionally. The stop at Home Depot was to obtain a coaxial wire needed for the Estero job, but the wire was not available. Employees are allowed to shop at local retail stores to acquire equipment or supplies not available through the School Board. However, all such purchases must be made by way of a purchase card (P-Card) so that purchases can be tracked. There is no P-Card receipt for the Home Depot visit on this date, but Respondent maintains that is because no purchase was made. That is, the coaxial wire he was looking for was not available. Reed said that Respondent made personal purchases from Home Depot and Lowe's on occasion during the summer of 2008 (because he was in the process of remodeling his house). He had purchased floor tiles and other items a couple of times a week that summer. However, she cannot remember whether he purchased anything on that particular date. Respondent admits that he did make purchases of home improvement products during work hours and transported the products in the work van to his house. He does not remember making any such stops for purposes during the week of June 20 through 27, 2008. Tuesday, June 24, 2008 On this date, Respondent's daily work log indicates three hours spent at Gateway and five hours spent at Island Coast.2 The GPS indicates the work van was at Gateway for three hours and at Island Coast for one hour and 40 minutes. The School Board also found the following other policy violations: A stop at Weaver's Corner for 36 minutes and 40 seconds, presumably a long lunch made longer by travel time to and from the lunch venue. An unauthorized visit for eight minutes and 40 seconds at a bank. A visit to a gas station for eight minutes, then a short drive to another gas station for five minutes. Respondent provides the following explanation and rebuttal to the School Board's findings: As before, the extended period of time for the Island Coast job site includes travel, breaks, and lunch. However, it would have been more accurate on this day to have split the two job sites equally. The stops at the gas stations were intentionally made so as not to return to Canal Street before the allotted 3:00 p.m., return time. Respondent does not provide any explanation for the longer than allowable lunch break. Wednesday, June 25, 2008 There were three stops on this date listed on Respondent's daily work log: Island Coast (4 hours), Dunbar Community (2 hours), and Ft. Myers High (2 hours). The GPS indicates the work van was at Island Coast for two hours and 11 minutes; at Dunbar Community for 11 minutes and 20 seconds; at Villas Elementary for one hour and 14 minutes; then at Ft. Myers High for four minutes and 40 seconds. Other perceived policy violations included: A short stop at a bank in the Wal-Mart parking lot upon leaving Canal Street. A lunch stop of 42 minutes and 30 seconds, not counting driving time to and from the restaurant. Another stop at Bank of America for in excess of ten minutes. A short, seven and a half-minute stop at a shopping center. Respondent provided the following in rebuttal and response to the School Board's perceived violations of policy: The quick stops at the banks were not prohibited and were common practice. They may have been part of Respondent's break time on that date. The lunch hour ran over, but was not excessive or intentional. It may have also included part of a break he never took that day. Thursday, June 26, 2008 This is the date that Moore initially reviewed in his training session that raised red flags concerning Respondent's time issues. On this date, the daily work log indicates seven hours in training and one hour at Villas Elementary. The School Board's concerns about this date are set forth above, but would also include: An authorized trip during the lunch hour for Respondent to retrieve a lap top which was being delivered by overnight delivery (so the computer would not be left sitting on the front porch). This trip which took approximately 18 minutes, of which 30 seconds was spent stopped at his house. Respondent also took time for lunch before returning to the training site. A circuitous, out-of-the-way route between the training site and the next job site (Villas Elementary). A short stop at a 7-11 Store and then a longer-than- usual route back to Canal Street. Respondent's explanation and rebuttal to the School Board's concerns were as follows: Respondent had permission to make a quick visit to his home during the lunch hour to see why his home alarm had activated. (He does not remember anything about a lap top or a need to retrieve it.) Respondent says that in the 30 seconds his work van was at the house, he exited the vehicle, walked to the house, unlocked the door and entered, turned off the alarm (which had been activated by his dog, who had escaped from his kennel), put his dog back in its kennel, re-set the alarm and left. Respondent was able to do his personal errand and get to the restaurant and eat lunch with his co-workers within the time (one hour) allotted for lunch that day by the trainer. The circuitous route was for the purpose of delivering some money to his daughter at her school. She was waiting for him outside, and he didn't even have to stop the work van to hand off the money. Rather, his daughter reached out and grabbed the money as he rolled past. The stop at the 7-11 Store was to use the rest room. Respondent's testimony concerning the stop at his house is not entirely believable. It would seem to take more than 30 seconds to accomplish the things that he did. However, inasmuch as he made the stop and was still able to join his co-workers in time for lunch, the reason for his home visit is immaterial. Also, the rolling delivery of money to his daughter is very unusual, but there is no evidence that the exchange did not take place in that fashion. Friday, June 27, 2008 This day's daily work log indicates three work sites: Dunbar Middle School (4 hours), Ft. Myers High (2 hours), and Cypress High School (Cypress High)(2 hours). The GPS indicates 33 minutes and 50 seconds at Dunbar; one hour and 47 minutes at Ft. Myers High; and five minutes and 50 seconds at Cypress High. The work van then went back to Dunbar for one hour, 51 minutes and 30 seconds. The School Board's other concerns about time and travel on this date are as follows: After leaving Canal Street that morning, the work van made stops at McDonalds for three minutes and at Lowe's for 15 minutes. There is a stop of one hour and eight minutes at a shopping plaza, presumably a long lunch hour. Respondent's response to the allegations of policy violations for this day are as follows: The McDonalds visit was again an allowable stop (as he understood the policies) for his assistant to get an iced tea. The Lowe's stop was for the purpose of getting concrete anchors needed for a School Board job, but none were available and so no purchase was made on the P-Card. The long lunch hour was just that; he was not thinking clearly because this was just one day prior to going on active duty and he was preoccupied with those thoughts. The extra driving time was due to the fact that after leaving Dunbar, Respondent was called on the radio to go back there for an emergency job. The daily work logs do not correspond exactly with Respondent's work day because that was not the purpose of the logs. The logs were, at that time, simply an indicator of which schools had been visited on any given day. There was no effort by anyone to be exact or precise with the times recorded on the daily logs. The daily logs are essentially of no value in determining where an employee might have been at any point in time on any given day. There is no way to reconcile the GPS times with the daily work logs. Each employee is expected to work a full day. If the number of tasks assigned during the morning meetings at Canal Street did not fill a technician's day, he/she was expected to locate additional work or do work on an on-going project to fill the day.3 Nonetheless, it is often difficult to coordinate a day's activities to make the assignments equate to the exact hours and minutes in a work day. A large part of an employee's time during the work day is spent driving his/her vehicle. The driving time is supposed to be factored into the time spent on a particular work site. Thus, if it took 30 minutes to get to a work site, that time would be added to the time spent actually at the site. Then, when driving to a subsequent work site, the drive time would be assigned to that next site, etc. Employees are on their honor to take breaks and lunch only when allowed and for the time allotted. There is no time clock, so each person must attempt to keep time themselves so as to honor the allotted times. This is often difficult due to slow service at a restaurant, inability to take breaks at a particular time, or other factors. The GPS system has provided the School Board with an effective tool for monitoring its employees' movements and location. However, at all times relevant hereto, the GPS system was in its infancy and the School Board was still learning how to assimilate and read the data generated by the system. Thus, Respondent's activities from June 20 through June 27, 2008, were examined in a way no other employee's had been looked at heretofore. It is, therefore, hard to make a comparative determination of Respondent's actions versus an established norm. Nonetheless, the School Board's findings are supported by the GPS data. That is, the daily work logs are not consistent with time actually spent at particular job sites. Respondent's lunch breaks exceed the allotted 30-minute time period almost every day that was examined. There are stops at local establishments that are not part of the employee's work duties. Some of the routes taken by an employee are not the shortest routes, although it is impossible to ascertain whether they are the best routes based on other extraneous factors. The time spent on breaks, versus travel time, is hard to ascertain with any degree of certainty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Lee County School Board, rescinding the notice of termination and imposing a less stringent penalty, e.g., a period of probation, a letter of reprimand and/or some remedial training, against Respondent, Christopher Rasmussen. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deborah Nash, is a white female who was formerly married to a black male. The issue of that marriage is a biracial son. In 1981 the marriage ended in divorce. Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in elementary education which she received in 1981. She earned a master's degree in early childhood education in 1983. While living in Kentucky, Petitioner had teaching experience. During her time in Kentucky she worked in a federally funded child development center. Most of the children in the program were black. The children ranged in age from infants to kindergarten aged children. Petitioner has had other experience in working with minorities in job placement programs. In August, 1984, Petitioner decided to move to Jacksonville, Florida, and to seek employment as a teacher. At relevant times in this inquiry, Petitioner has held a Florida teaching certificate. Upon arrival in Jacksonville, Florida, Petitioner was interviewed by John Haevener, Supervisor of Elementary Staffing for the Duval County School Board, Respondent. Mr. Haevener determined to refer Petitioner to Hortense Brewington, principal at Northshore Elementary School, an elementary school within the Duval County School System. Ms. Brewington is a black female. In making this referral, Haevener felt satisfied about the ability which the Petitioner had to cope with the situation at Northshore Elementary. That school is one which has a minority student population of 95 percent black students and 5 percent white students. The faculty in that school is 70 percent white and 30 percent black. Haevener felt that the Petitioner could succeed in that environment because she had had past experience in dealing with the needs of children in the lower socio-economic strata. In the course of the interview between the Petitioner and Ms. Brewington, Petitioner revealed, upon questioning, the nature of her marital status and whether she had children and, in commenting about her child, told Ms. Brewington that she had a biracial child. This comment was met by Ms. Brewington by a look of surprise. Petitioner was accepted as an employee with the Duval County School System beginning in August, 1984, for the school year 1984-1985. Her assignment was as a second grade teacher at Northshore Elementary. This assignment was changed to a third grade class and Petitioner maintained that position during the relevant periods under consideration. Given that this was an initial assignment to the Duval County School System, Petitioner was placed in the Beginning Teachers Program. This arrangement contemplated and the Petitioner was given assistance in the performance of her teaching duties, provided by the Respondent. Petitioner's class was constituted of 28 students, 26 of whom were minorities, 25 of those children being black. In the fall of the school year 1984-1985, and in particular around October 1984, petitioner began to have difficulties with the class. There were numerous fights between the children. The children were otherwise uncooperative in the sense of not staying in their seats or "talking back" to the Petitioner. In one instance, a student drew two pictures of naked females, one of which was entitled "Angela" and the other reported to be the Petitioner. These items may be found as Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1 and 2 admitted into evidence. Petitioner took the student who had drawn these pictures to Ms. Brewington to seek assistance in disciplining the student. Ms. Brewington's response was not effective, in that the child who made the drawings and was taken to Ms. Brewington for discipline was not punished. This circumstance was representative of Ms. Brewington's shortcomings in disciplining the children within her school, to include children in the Petitioner's class. To summarize, Ms. Brewington was inconsistent in her approach to matters of discipline. On two occasions a male student in the class brought a 5" long switchblade knife to class. These two occurrences were separated in time by about five days. Petitioner referred the student to Ms. Brewington for discipline, but she continued to have problems with the child. Ms. Brewington suspended the child after the second incident with the knife. An additional problem the Petitioner experienced concerned the fact that the children had skills attributable to first graders and were expected to read on a level pertaining to third grade students. Petitioner, in carrying out her duties, was given some assistance in that a Chapter I teacher worked in the Petitioner's classroom with a small group while other class instruction was going on. This Chapter I instruction involved one or two students at a time. Nan Ramey, involved with teacher instructional support for the Duval County School System, was part of the in-service cadre in the school year 1984- 1985. Ms. Ramey holds a degree in elementary education and a master's degree in administrative supervision associated with the educational field. Among her duties was providing assistance to beginning teachers, to include Petitioner. From August 30, 1984 through April 1, 1987, Ramey visited Northshore Elementary 38 times and held eight workshops related to assertive discipline, two of which were attended by the Petitioner. Ms. Ramey found that the Petitioner had problems with instructional organization. If the teacher is sufficiently organized, according to Ramey, student disciplinary problems will not prohibit the teacher from performing his or her duties. She made a specific review of the Petitioner's circumstance at the instigation of Ms. Brewington. By Ms. Ramey's observations, the other beginning teachers who had been assigned to the Northshore Elementary School for the school year 1984-1985 did not experience the problems about student discipline to the degree that Petitioner did. Ms. Ramey gave materials to the beginning teachers at the workshops on assertive discipline and all teachers obtained those materials whether or not they attended the workshop meetings. Classroom tips were given to the teachers on dealing with problems with the students. Ramey saw the Petitioner 31 times in the school year in question. When dealing with the teachers in a one-on-one relationship, twenty to thirty minutes were spent by Ramey in each of these sessions. Petitioner continued to struggle with the problems in her classroom, even after making her best attempts at trying to cope with the situation. During this time, Petitioner talked to Ms. Brewington and Ms. Ramey about her need for assistance. Petitioner was particularly concerned that Ms. Brewington was not doing her part to support the Petitioner in dealing in an effective way with the class disciplinary needs. Petitioner was very distressed about the situation in her classroom and experienced a change in her emotional outlook from normal limits to depression, lack of attention to her housekeeping duties and emotional upheaval to the extent of crying on numerous occasions. Petitioner had been treated by Dr. Edith Ortega, a primary care physician following her arrival in Jacksonville. Around the first of March, 1985, the Petitioner was suffering from a heart condition which had associated chest pains, she had shortness of breath and, as she describes it, felt drained of energy. Dr. Ortega referred the Petitioner to Dr. David A. Orea, a practicing psychiatrist, who undertook the treatment of the Petitioner for the period March 5, 1985 through August 19, 1985. In view of her illness, Petitioner applied for an extended leave of absence which Respondent granted. The extended leave request was for March 4, 1985 through the end of the year. While the Petitioner was on extended leave of absence, she was not paid. On March 8, 1985, in the company of Luann Bennett, president of the Duval Teachers United, which represents the interests of teachers on contract with the Duval County School Board, Petitioner met with Dr. Larry Paulk. Dr. Paulk at that time was the assistant superintendent for personnel. Their entreaties to Dr. Paulk concerned the classroom situation that the Petitioner was experiencing, especially in describing Ms. Brewington's shortcomings. Dr. Paulk was presented with a letter on that same date which offered written expression to the Petitioner's concerns. A copy of that letter may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. The summarizing position which the Petitioner stated in the correspondence was that she wished to be transferred elsewhere or be given some immediate assistance in her class which would manage the fights which were going on, as reported in the correspondence, averaging about three per day in recent times. The impression which the Petitioner and Ms. Bennett were left with was to the effect that Dr. Paulk would allow the Petitioner to transfer from her assignment if Dr. Orea felt that was necessary to address the Petitioner's medical condition. Succinctly put in writing by Ms. Bennett on the face of the Petitioner's exhibit 4, the March 8, 1985 letter, is the expression that Dr. Paulk said it was "...also possible, if doctor requests, probably can get transfer." Dr. Paulk, in his recollection of the conversation of March 8, 1987, saw it as being a discussion of the problems experienced by the Petitioner in dealing with her principal, Ms. Brewington, and the associated problem of the Petitioner's health. The conference was concluded with what Dr. Paulk saw as a proposal by Ms. Bennett that hypothetically if the Petitioner's doctor recommended the transfer would the school board allow for that transfer. Dr. Paulk told the Petitioner and Ms. Bennett that he needed a statement from Dr. Orea which would release the Petitioner from her extended absence or leave, because at the time of the interview the Petitioner was on extended leave and it would be necessary for the doctor to establish what conditions would be acceptable to allow the Petitioner to return to work. In that setting, Dr. Paulk recalls telling Ms. Bennett that he would consider a transfer assuming clarification by the treating physician, Dr. Orea. Dr. Paulk recalls that Petitioner and Ms. Bennett said that they would get the letter from Dr. Orea. Dr. Paulk in his experience is unacquainted with medical transfers such as requested by the Petitioner. This case to his knowledge was a matter of first impression. He is acquainted with medical transfers from one floor of a school to another to accommodate the needs of the teacher. Dr. Paulk was provided with a note or correspondence from Dr. Orea on March 14, 1985, indicating that it would be acceptable for the Petitioner to return to work on March 18, 1985, if she were granted a transfer from her present position. Dr. Paulk was uncertain what was meant by this correspondence in terms of exactly where the Petitioner should be placed if removed from her present classroom setting. Dr. Paulk discussed this what he considered to be the vague recommendation by Dr. Orea in a conversation with Ms. Bennett. At Ms. Bennett's suggestion, Dr. Paulk spoke with Dr. Orea on March 18, 1985. Prior to discussing the situation with Dr. Orea on March 18, 1985, Dr. Paulk had talked to Mr. Haevener about the propriety of the Petitioner's assignment to Northshore Elementary. Dr. Paulk was interested in knowing why the Petitioner had been placed at that school. At that time Haevener indicated that Dr. Paulk should know that Petitioner had been divorced from a black male. In this connection, Dr. Paulk says he had no knowledge of the fact that Petitioner and her former husband had a biracial son until a point in time at which the Petitioner had brought her claims of discrimination, and a preliminary hearing was held in front of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which occurred subsequent to the end of the 1984-1985 school year. The school year ended in June, 1985. Petitioner spoke to Haevener some time following his March 8, 1985 meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Bennett. In conversation with Dr. Orea, Dr. Paulk felt compelled to ask Dr. Orea about the significance, if any, of the Petitioner having been a party to a biracial marriage, given that the Petitioner was a white female in a predominately black school with a black principal. Dr. Paulk was concerned about race relations. Dr. Paulk says that not having been told of the existence of a biracial son before this discussion with Dr. Orea, he has no recollection of telling Dr. Orea anything about the biracial child. Dr. Paulk recalls that Dr. Orea indicated that he had no knowledge of any biracial marriage and that, from Dr. Paulk's recollection, concluded the discussion on that topic. Dr. Paulk felt that Dr. Orea was still vague about where the proper placement might be for the Petitioner other than to say anywhere but Northshore Elementary. Dr. Orea, in his recollection of the conversation of March 18, 1987 with Dr. Orea, recalled that it was one in which Dr. Orea told Dr. Paulk that he was not at liberty to discuss the therapy sessions with the Petitioner. He nonetheless stated that the Petitioner's situation, from the point of view of Dr. Orea, was one in which the relationship with a black man had no bearing on the stress or depression Petitioner was experiencing. The stress, in Dr. Orea's opinion, was that brought on by working conditions which Petitioner was subjected to. In his affidavit given to the Florida Commission on Human Relations, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, and which Dr. Orea confirmed in his telephone testimony at the formal hearing, he states that Petitioner's divorce from a black man had no relevance, and it would not matter whether the former husband was black or not. Dr. Orea felt that the troublesome students, regardless of their race, could be a significant source of stress and might through that situation precipitate depression on the part of Petitioner. He did not feel that there was any relationship between the Petitioner's private life and the stress she experienced at Northshore Elementary. His principal concern about the health of this patient was to the effect that she be transferred to another school and to do otherwise would be detrimental to her health. He emphasizes that on March 14, 1985, he had made the recommendation for transfer and had released her to go back to work if transferred. Dr. Orea recalls that Dr. Paulk mentioned the biracial son in the conversation. Dr. Orea states in his affidavit and confirms in his testimony at hearing that he did not believe that the problems the Petitioner experienced were associated with the fact that she had a biracial son or were related in any particular way to the race of her husband, the students in her class, or the principal at the school. Dr. Orea has no specific recollection of whether he discussed Petitioner's marital status with her, although he would normally find this information out in dealing with a patient. Whether Dr. Paulk is correct in his recollection that the matter of the biracial son was not discussed with Dr. Orea, or that Dr. Orea, in his reference to discussing the biracial son is correct, does not matter. For the record, Dr. Paulk is found to have mentioned the biracial son in conversation with Dr. Orea. In either event Dr. Paulk, by those actions taken in discussing the Petitioner's situation with Dr. Orea and other actions which he would take in this matter, were not intended to and did not discriminate against the Petitioner in any fashion related to her race, the race of her former husband or son or related to her marital status. Dr. Paulk was merely expressing an interest in seeing if there was some underlying racial connotation in the Petitioner's reluctance to return to her classroom at Northshore Elementary School, based upon her background and her present circumstance within that school. In the conversation between Dr. Paulk and Dr. Orea, Dr. Paulk asked Dr. Orea whether the placement should be at a black school or a white school. Dr. Orea had no special placement in mind other than removal from Northshore Elementary or any similar setting. Dr. Paulk also spoke with Ms. Bennett about whether she felt that the Petitioner's situation was one involving a racial problem, but he does not recall receiving any definitive response from Ms. Bennett. Dr. Paulk, apparently beyond the conversation with Dr. Orea on March 18, 1987, decided that the main difficulty experienced by the Petitioner had to do with her problems with the principal, Ms. Brewington. Dr. Paulk thought that Petitioner could return to school the following year, and that the replacement of Ms. Brewington with a new principal would solve the problems that the Petitioner had. Dr. Paulk was reluctant to receive the Petitioner back to school in the school year 1984- 1985 because of what he perceived to be the unwillingness of Dr. Orea to give an unconditional release of the patient from treatment. In her testimony, Ms. Bennett said that she spoke with Dr. Paulk in a conversation in which Dr. Paulk stated that Dr. Orea had led Dr. Paulk to believe that the problem Petitioner was experiencing was racially based, and that therefore, it would not be acceptable to transfer the Petitioner to a new school because Petitioner, through her history with her husband, was having a reaction to black people, children included. Ms. Bennett testified that this was a change in the position that Dr. Paulk had held concerning Petitioner's transfer. Having considered everyone's testimony, it is concluded that Ms. Bennett misapprehended Dr. Paulk's statement that the Petitioner's problem was racially based in describing Dr. Paulk's interpretation of Dr. Orea's remarks. Nonetheless, Dr. Paulk did tell Ms. Bennett, following his conversation with Dr. Orea, that the Petitioner would have to return to her school and might have the possibility of transfer at some later date. Ms. Bennett also identified that Dr. Paulk told her that Petitioner had been married to a black man and had a biracial son. Again, even though the remarks were made by Dr. Paulk, they are not discriminatory. In conversation with Ms. Bennett, Dr. Paulk stated that the policy of the board was to not allow an arrangement which would accede to an outcome which had racially based motives, reference Petitioner's transfer request. When the Petitioner discovered that she would not be transferred, her condition reached a level where it was necessary to hospitalize her for her stress in the period March 21, 1985 through April 5, 1985, under the care of Dr. Orea. From that point until August 19, 1985, the Petitioner was seen on an out- patient basis. On July 25, 1985, Dr. Orea wrote to Dr. Paulk to further describe his opinion of the Petitioner's health in which he sets forth that the Petitioner has major depression related to stress suffered at work and not related to racial issues. He goes on to indicate that the Petitioner could have been able to work from March 18, 1985 and forward, and that the Petitioner could function in a normal classroom as a teacher as long as it was not at Northshore nor in any other school where there were severe disciplinary problems. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. On March 26, 1985, the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner to ascertain the Petitioner's intentions concerning her future affiliation with the school system. This document was received by the Petitioner on May 3, 1985. It outlined three alternatives. She could request to return to her present school, Northshore Elementary School, for the upcoming school year 1985- 1986, she could request an additional year leave of absence, if entitled, or she could resign her position effective June 14, 1985. A copy of this item as executed by the Petitioner may be found as Respondent's exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner signed this item on May 9, 1985 and in making an election instead of noting her return to the classroom assignment that she held before, attempted to gain a transfer to a school in the Ortega area for any grades K-5, preferably K, 1 or 2. She also noted her education as holding a master's degree in early childhood. This item was received back by the Respondent on May 13, 1985, in its personnel office. This form may not be used for purposes of requesting voluntary transfer to a different school. A copy of a memorandum concerning voluntary transfer may be found as Respondent's exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. It pertains to the school year 1985-1986 and dates from April 1, 1985 and is addressed to all teachers within the Duval County School System. It points out that the request would be considered upon asking for four schools in order of preference and one of eight geographical zones. It alerts the faculty members to the fact that a Federal Court order mandates the staff ratio of approximately 70 percent white to 30 percent black teachers in each school. It describes the fact that seniority will control in those instances where more than one applicant has satisfied other related criteria. Petitioner was without a great deal of seniority, having just affiliated with the Duval County School System the year before. The arrangement also contemplates the need to be approved by the receiving principal. This process is in accordance with the agreement between the Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board. The area described in the unauthorized form which the Petitioner wished to use to transfer is one highly sought after and there is very little likelihood that the Petitioner would have been able to voluntarily transfer into the Ortega area. She says she had sought that area not because of any express appreciation of the high desirability of that area as a teaching environment, but based upon the close proximity of her residence to that area. The form of transfer which the Petitioner sought was one that has been described by Ms. Bennett as outside the agreement between the teachers' union and the Respondent, that cannot be handled by ordinary means. As described before, the typical transfer for health-related reasons that had been done in the past related to changes in location within the building to accommodate the teachers' needs. Given that the Respondent was not satisfied about exactly what setting would be an acceptable arrangement for the Petitioner from the point of view of the Petitioner's treating physician, Dr. Orea, and given that the Respondent had determined to remove Ms. Brewington as principal at Northshore Elementary and substitute Cynthia Anderson at that school for the school year 1985-1986, no special arrangement was made to accommodate the Petitioner by transfer. The decision to send Petitioner back into that setting was made by Mr. Haevener and Dr. Paulk, following discussion on two or three occasions. This decision on placement was further confirmed in a second notice of August 6, 1985, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit 4, served upon the Petitioner, inviting her to return to Northshore Elementary. Having not heard from the Petitioner, the Respondent sent a notification on August 22, 1985, by certified mail, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit 8 admitted into evidence, indicating that the Respondent found the Petitioner to have declined the right to an employment contract for the school year 1985-1986. Facts in the case lead to the conclusion that notwithstanding the format which Petitioner utilized in attempting to locate in a school in the Ortega area, she would not have been entitled to that assignment. Ms. Ramey and the new principal, Ms. Anderson, point out the fact that Northshore Elementary School was similar to other schools in the Duval County School System. Ms. Anderson in particular points out that the disciplinary problems were about the same at Northshore Elementary, although the facts that more students were there and it was a predominantly black school may have made the circumstance worse. Ms. Anderson, by her testimony, related her attempts at improving the disciplinary situation at Northshore in the school year 1985-1986 and established the success that was achieved in that endeavor. When she arrived at the school, the school had approximately 1,100 students and 65 teachers of which 50 teachers were returning staff members. On balance, her description of the events of the school year 1985-1986 indicate that the Petitioner would have returned to a much better environment as it addressed her primary concern of support within the classroom given by the administration. Petitioner served her probationary period and was issued a permanent teaching certificate. Not being satisfied with the arrangements Respondent made to address her situation, Petitioner elected to leave Jacksonville, Florida, and to go and live with her mother in Boca Raton, Florida. She began teaching kindergarten in Boca Raton, Florida, in September, 1985 and continues as a teacher. She has overcome her stress-related illness. Given the constraints on the Respondent concerning the teacher placement and the need to honor the conditions of seniority, the faculty ratio between whites and blacks and the expectation that teachers must confront the stress inherent in teaching in schools such as Northshore Elementary, the response which did not allow for a transfer is not discrimination against a handicap, even if emotional stress is considered to be a handicap.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as a school psychologist because he is willfully absent without leave from his job, pursuant to section 1012.67, Florida Statutes, or because he was grossly insubordinate in failing to self-report a criminal arrest, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(4) and 6A-10.081(5)(m).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a school psychologist for at least ten years. Working under an 11-month contract for the 2014-15 school year, Respondent's first day of duty was in late July, about one month prior to the students' return to school. It appears that Respondent duly reported for work at the appointed time and assumed his assigned duties. However, on August 20, 2014, Respondent was arrested by a sheriff's deputy for the felonies of lewd and lascivious behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor. The arrest took place during the school day at North Port High School. To avoid disrupting the school's operation any more than was necessary, the principal, deputy, and school resource officer coordinated the arrest so that Respondent presented himself for arrest in the front of the school. Respondent did so, and the arrest took place without incident. After taking Respondent into custody, the deputy transported Respondent to the Sarasota County jail, where he has remained continuously since August 20 through the date of the hearing in this case. Respondent has not waived his right to a speedy trial, and his trial is presently set for early February 2015. The Sarasota Herald Tribune published a story of the arrest in its online edition by 2:00 p.m. on August 20. The story states that Respondent had been arrested for molesting a girl on multiple occasions in 2013 while the child, who was 14 and 15 years old at the time of the alleged incidents, lived in a therapeutic foster home that Respondent and his then-wife had operated. The story notes that Respondent was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct and was being held on $100,000 bond. Another story appeared in the Sarasota Herald Tribune newspaper on the following day and essentially repeated the facts reported in the online story. On the day of the arrest, the sheriff's office faxed to Petitioner a memorandum of an arrest of an employee of Petitioner. The memorandum identifies Respondent as the arrestee and the charges as violations of sections 800.04(5)(c)2., Florida Statutes, for a "sex offense against child fondling victim 12 YOA to 16 YOA offender 18 YOA or older" and 800.04(6)(a)1. for a "sex offense against child person over 18 yrs on child less than 16 yrs old." Respondent has never self-reported the arrest. However, within 48 hours of the arrest, the principal of North Port High School and Respondent's immediate supervisor in the District office knew all of the information concerning the arrest that would have been included in the self-reporting form that Petitioner has disseminated for self-reporting arrests. As indicated in the August 20 online newspaper article, bond was initially set at $100,000 for the two offenses, but was later doubled. The record permits no finding as to why Respondent has not posted bond himself or through the services of a limited surety; in particular, the record provides no basis for finding that Respondent has the financial capacity to pay the bond or, if using the services of a limited surety, pay the bond premium and post any security required by a surety. Based on the foregoing, the sole factual grounds supporting Petitioner's abandonment claim are his arrest and ensuing pretrial incarceration.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order dismissing the termination claims based on willful absence without leave and just cause in the form of gross insubordination for failure to self-report an arrest within 48 hours. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John R. Tenbroeck, held teaching certificate number 228148 issued by petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education. The certificate covers the areas of administration, bookkeeping, mathematics, physical education and biology and is valid through June 30, 1996. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as assistant principal at Westside Skills Center (Westside) in school year 1989- 1990 and as assistant principal at Raines Senior High School in school year 1990-1991. The schools are a part of the Duval County School District. In school year 1989-90, Angela McKenzie, who was born on May 15, 1974, was a tenth-grade student during the morning hours at Westside and attended Edward White High School during the afternoon session. Angela's schedule called for her to arrive by bus each day at the Westside campus around 7:45 a.m. She remained on that campus until 11:00 a.m. when she rode a school bus to the other campus. During the same school year, respondent held the position of assistant principal at Westside and occupied an office in an area designated as the office of student services. Angela first met respondent during school orientation in January 1990. Because of an impending divorce by her mother and stepfather, which ultimately became final in May 1990, Angela had occasion to speak with respondent, whose duties included counseling with students. Although Angela denied that their teacher-student relationship grew into a personal relationship, it is found that the two began seeing each other on a personal basis sometime during the spring of 1990. This finding is based on the findings below. She was then fifteen years old while respondent was forty-eight years of age. During the spring of 1990, respondent and Angela were observed on numerous occasions talking with each other at the bus stop from around 7:45 a.m., when she first arrived on campus, until 7:55 a.m., when respondent's duty of monitoring buses ended. On several occasions during the same time period, she was observed visiting respondent's office and speaking with him behind closed doors. In addition, the two were seen leaving campus together in respondent's car several times either at mid-morning or during lunch hour, and several times they were seen arriving together by car early in the morning. Further, on several occasions Angela telephoned respondent at his office after she had left campus. Finally, one member of the Westside faculty recalled periodically seeing the two riding in respondent's automobile off-campus during the evening hours while another faculty member described seeing the two spending an "unusual" amount of time together. While some of the observations of the two being seen together may have been occasioned by respondent giving Angela a ride to the Edward White campus at lunch hour (if she missed her ride on the school bus), or giving her rides to karate practice in the evenings where he served as her trainer or coach, collectively these observations, coupled with the fact that the two were later married, support a finding that their relationship was more than that of a teacher-student. However, there is no competent, credible evidence that the two engaged in sexual activities prior to marriage or otherwise acted in a romantic or otherwise inappropriate fashion while on the campus or in the presence of other students and faculty. After rumors concerning the two surfaced at Westside that spring, respondent met with the Westside vice-principal and principal on three occasions and was told that he must not engage in a personal relationship with a student. At those meetings, respondent steadfastly denied that such a relationship existed. Because school administrators had no evidence of wrongdoing, no action was taken against respondent. In school year 1990-91, respondent was transferred to Raines High School where he served as assistant principal until he was suspended in January 1991. It should be noted that after the last warning was given by the principal at the close of school year 1989-90, there is no evidence that the two were seen together in public until after their marriage. On December 18, 1990, respondent and Angela were married in Nassau County, Florida. Because of Angela's age (she was then sixteen), it was necessary for her natural father to give his permission for her to marry. Following the marriage, Angela withdrew from school. However, at the time of hearing, Angela had resumed her education. The two are still married and Angela now uses respondent's last name. Although Angela simply said they got married because "it was the appropriate thing to do", and denied that they were involved in a personal relationship before that time, this assertion is not deemed to be credible. On January 15, 1991, or after the marriage became publicly known, respondent resigned his position with the School Board. The resignation was subsequently rescinded by the School Board and he was then placed on administrative leave. Testimony by a school administrator accepted as an expert in school administration established that by having a personal relationship with a minor student, which culminated in marriage and thereafter gained some notoriety in the community, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously impaired. However, the same administrator pointed out that there is no policy or rule which prohibits a teacher from marrying a student, and that by itself would not serve as the basis for taking disciplinary action against the teacher. Rather, the loss of effectiveness here arises as a result of respondent's personal relationship with a student. In terms of respondent's performance as an administrator-teacher, his most recent evaluation reflects that he was "an excellent dean", he displayed "significant skills" in management competencies, and was "a perfect example of team work."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a Final Order finding respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, that his teaching certificate be suspended for two years, such suspension to begin on January 15, 1991, that respondent receive a letter of reprimand from the Education Practices Commission, and that he be placed on three years probation after the suspension is completed with quarterly reports given to the Commission by his immediate supervisor. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of August, 1992.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1 on or about January 8, 1976, by possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 16 year old, 11th grade high school student attending Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida. On January 8, 1976, Respondent was found in possession of 32 grams of marijuana on the grounds of Marathon High School. (Stipulation of the Parties) On April 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, accepted Respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana, withheld adjudication as a delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of a Youth Counselor, State of Florida Youth Services Division. Conditions of probation included a curfew, weekly meetings with the counselor and part-time employment while attending school. (Testimony of Seale) At the time of his apprehension, Respondent admitted possession of marijuana to authorities and cooperated with them by divulging its source. Respondent denies any prior arrests and, in the opinion of the Youth Counselor, he is not likely to commit an offense of this nature in the future. He has evidenced remorse and desires to continue attendance at the high school. The Youth Counselor feels that it would serve no useful purpose to prevent him from further attendance. (Testimony of Seale, Collins) Respondent is not a problem student nor is he considered to be incorrigible or a socially maladjusted child. An alternative to expulsion exists at Marathon High School in the form of a rehabilitative program for socially maladjusted children that is supervised by one instructor who exercises close supervision over the students in the program. A student who is expelled from high school may enter an evening adult education program whereby he can acquire necessary academic credits by attending evening classes. The principal of Marathon High School recommends that Respondent be expelled because of the seriousness of his offense as evidenced by the unusually large amount of marijuana. (Testimony of Gradick)
Recommendation That Respondent, Gordon Collins, be expelled from Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida, effective June 8, 1976, for violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1, by possession of marijuana on the school grounds on or about January 8, 1976. DONE and ENTERED 14th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn Archer, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Post Office Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040 Peter Lenzi, Esquire Post Office Box 938 Marathon, Florida 33050
