Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H POLLOCK 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 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
The Issue Whether Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB") had just cause to suspend and recommend the termination of Respondent, Carla McCray's ("McCray" or "Respondent"), employment for the reasons set forth in the agency action letter dated December 20, 2018.
Findings Of Fact MDCSB is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, McCray was employed by MDCSB as a school security monitor at MSHS, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and served in that capacity since 1998. Respondent's employment with MDCSB is governed by Florida law, MDCSB's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between MDCSB and the United Teachers of Dade Union. As a school security monitor, McCray's duties included assisting students, assisting with student/staff altercations, protecting the school from intruders, and to generally protect the safety of everyone in the school. The proposed discipline is based upon McCray's repeated refusal to submit for a fitness-for-duty evaluation after repeated instructions to do so. Facts Giving Rise to the Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation Request In March 2018, the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for Miami-Dade County Public School ("MDCPS") received a call from Marian Lambeth, the Chief of the Professional Practices Commission of the Florida Department of Education. She advised OPS that McCray sent the Commission correspondence entitled "Criminal Misconduct Complaints and Willful Violations," which was 322 pages. The lengthy, repetitious, and disjointed correspondence describes a variety of alleged "cyber internet crimes," including inter cyber-bullying, cyber- harassment, and cyber-stalking. The voluminous "complaint" lists alleged infractions dating back for at least ten years. This bizarre document caused OPS and District Director Carmen Molina to be concerned for McCray's well-being and essentially put McCray on the District's "radar." McCray previously made similarly odd computer-related complaints in December 2016 to Assistant Principal Dwight Arscott. She told him people were taking control of computers she was using and logging her out of District computers. Mr. Arscott contacted the MSHS Information Technology Services ("ITS") department and also school police. McCray's complaint was investigated and found to be without any merit. McCray again made similar complaints to Mr. Arscott in January 2017, and this time he referred her to school police because, in McCray's opinion, ITS had not done a sufficient job of investigating the matter. Again, no problem was discovered regarding McCray's district-issued computers or accounts. At the start of the 2018-2019 school year, McCray expressed to Mr. Arscott that she did not feel safe using school email systems and requested that he contact her through her personal Yahoo email address. She expressed that she did not want to use the District email because she was being cyber-bullied and harassed and did not feel safe using it. As a result she was experiencing "distress." McCray memorialized her concerns in emails she sent to Mr. Arscott and other MSHS administrators beginning in August 2018. In one such email, Respondent stated that she was experiencing "overwhelming of emotional, psychological and spiritual distressed." She also stated, "I wasn't feeling in the best of wellness, for the same aforementioned reasons." She also requested a meeting with Mr. Arscott after her "wellness recovery." Mr. Arscott accommodated Respondent and gave her some time off. At the meeting she requested a personnel investigation, and Mr. Arscott explained to her that that process did not apply to her computer-related complaints. The emails from McCray caused Mr. Arscott to worry about Respondent's well-being. Additionally Mr. Arscott was concerned that a security monitor was making these complaints, because security monitors are responsible for protecting the school and alerting administration to potential security issues. MSHS is charged with educating and supervising over 3,000 students. Security monitors are relied upon to be the administration's "eyes and ears" at the school. MSHS Principal Benny Valdes shared the same concerns regarding McCray's communications because her self-described "emotional distress" could affect the safety of everyone at the school, including the students, staff, and McCray. On September 20, 2018, at 6:59 p.m., McCray sent yet another email to Mr. Arscott complaining of harassment, bullying, stalking, discrimination, safety violations, and security violations. She also claimed to be experiencing medical difficulties, including abrupt panic attacks, breathing problems, chest pain, and having to depart work early to immediately seek medical attention. The verbiage of the email is jumbled, disjointed, and nonsensical. Mr. Arscott was concerned, particularly by the alleged "safety concerns," because they were not detailed in the email. When he attempted to speak with McCray about her allegations, she provided no details. Mr. Arscott knew McCray left school a couple times to see doctors and his concerns were growing. In her September 20, 2018, email, McCray copied numerous other public officials and entities having nothing to do with MDCPS, including the Miami-Dade State Attorney, the FBI, Governor Rick Scott, and Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson. On September 21, 2018, at 9:49 p.m., a similar email was sent to Mr. Arscott once again and a similar list of public officials was copied by McCray. In this email McCray requested copies of the documentation pertaining to her computer complaints. Apparently the ones she had been previously provided by Mr. Arscott were not "visually sufficient" for her. On September 24, 2018, at 5:39 a.m., McCray sent another similar email to Mr. Arscott and, once again, copied a seemingly random list of public officials. Then again on September 26, 2018, at 5:40 a.m., McCray sent another similar email to Mr. Arscott, as well as various public officials. Mr. Arscott estimated that there were 30 or more of these repetitious and bizarre emails sent by McCray between September 20 and 26, 2018. At or about the same time one morning, McCray also texted Mr. Arscott with her concerns 46 times between approximately 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Trying to address all of McCray's repetitive requests, sent virtually at all hours of the day and night, took Mr. Arscott away from his other duties at the school. As a result of these communications and their concerns for both Respondent and the school, both Mr. Arscott and Mr. Valdes supported the decision to send Respondent for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Mr. Valdes also stated that he would not be comfortable with Respondent returning to MSHS. The Fitness-for-Duty Process School Board Policy 4161--Fitness for Duty, applies to noninstructional personnel, which includes security monitors. The fitness policy refers to the applicable CBA. Article XXI(F) of the CBA dictates that at the request of administration, an employee can be sent for a psychological or psychiatric examination or test upon a written statement of the need for such an examination. District Director Carmen Molina testified that the District was first alerted of concerns for McCray's well-being when Marian Lambeth called and provided OPS with a copy of McCray's 322-page complaint in March 2018. These concerns were amplified when McCray began sending emails to MSHS administration describing various forms of distress she was experiencing. Much like Mr. Arscott and Mr. Valdes, Ms. Molina was concerned that a security monitor was making these complaints and allegations. Understanding the role of security monitors at a school, she too supported sending McCray for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. As a result of the administration's well-founded concerns, on September 27, 2018, a Conference for the Record ("CFR") was held with McCray and two union representatives concerning sending McCray for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. When McCray arrived for the CFR, Ms. Molina handed her an envelope that contained a written description of why she was being sent for a fitness evaluation. Ms. Molina explained to her both in writing and verbally that she was being sent for the evaluation because of her repeated complaints about cyber- bullying and her claims of emotional, psychological, and spiritual distress. The reasons for the evaluation were also memorialized in the CFR summary Ms. Molina drafted and presented to McCray. At the CFR, McCray wanted the meeting postponed for lack of union representation, yet this claim had no basis because two union representatives were present. McCray asked Ms. Molina what the basis for the fitness determination was and Ms. Molina advised her that it was because of the frequency and the content of the emails she was repeatedly sending. Ms. Molina even presented her with an email dated September 26, 2018, and asked McCray if she sent it. McCray replied that "it looked familiar." During the CFR, Ms. Molina directed McCray to go to the fitness-for-duty evaluation and provided her with a list of clinical evaluators from which to choose three. McCray refused to sign this referral document, as well as the written basis for the fitness determination. It was explained to her that going to the fitness-for-duty evaluation was a condition of her continued employment and that if she refused, it would be considered insubordination. McCray was given until September 28, 2018, to call Ms. Molina with her selected evaluators, but she never made the call. After this meeting, McCray was placed on "alternate assignment" and remained at home with full pay. When McCray did not call Ms. Molina as directed to schedule the fitness evaluation, another CFR was scheduled for October 4, 2018. Ms. Molina testified that McCray was given more than two day's notice for this second CFR and emailed the notice to her preferred Yahoo email account. McCray did not attend this CFR. However, the written summary of this CFR, which once again contained written directives to schedule the fitness-for-duty appointment, was sent to McCray. McCray failed to select her choices of evaluators for the second time and, as a result, a third CFR was held on October 15, 2018. Despite her refusal to participate in the fitness process, McCray continued to send a barrage of bizarre emails. McCray attended this CFR and was once again directed by Ms. Molina to go for a fitness evaluation. This was the third time McCray received these directives in writing and the second time Ms. Molina gave them verbally. During this CFR, McCray was once again presented with a list of doctors to choose from and she again refused to sign it. McCray was also advised that her continued refusal to go for the fitness evaluation was gross insubordination. McCray repeatedly said, "I heard you" when Ms. Molina spoke to her. In early November 2018, there was a fourth CFR held with McCray that she attended and was once again given a chance to participate in the fitness process. Again, she refused. On November 29, 2018, McCray was given a fifth and final opportunity to participate in the fitness-for-duty process at her meeting prior to board action. It was explained to her by Ms. Molina, Ms. Molina's supervisor, Dr. Jimmie Brown, and then Associate Superintendent Joyce Castro that she would have to go for the fitness evaluation or be terminated. McCray still refused to go. McCray was also presented with an entire copy of her disciplinary file by Ms. Molina. On December 18, 2018, McCray was emailed and sent via certified mail a letter that informed her that her termination was going to be recommended at the December 19, 2018, MDCSB meeting. On December 20, 2018, McCray was emailed and sent via certified mail a letter that informed her that MDCSB had taken action to terminate her employment. McCray's Arguments McCray argues that termination is inappropriate because she did not receive sufficient advanced notice of the first CFR, as required by the CBA, and she was not given a valid reason for the need for the fitness-for-duty evaluation. McCray also argues that MDCSB's failure to provide a Notice of Specific Charges prior to her termination deprived her of due process. Notice of the First CFR Article XXI, Section 1, A(3) of the CBA governing the terms of McCray's employment provides that, "Employees shall be given two days' notice and a statement of the reason for the conference, except in cases deemed to be an emergency." MDCSB alleges that the September 27, 2018, CFR was an emergency justifying the lack of advance notice. McCray contends that there was no emergency because MDCSB became concerned about McCray's mental health after receiving her 322-page complaint letter in March 2018. Although the March 2018 complaint raised concerns regarding McCray's well-being and mental stability, it was her ongoing and ever-increasing barrage of bizarre, and often incomprehensible, emails to numerous individuals in which she expressed concerns about her own safety and stability that escalated the situation to an emergency. Despite the lack of advanced notice, McCray had two union representatives present at this first meeting to assist her with the process. Accordingly, MDCSB was justified in calling the initial emergency CFR without two days' advance notice. Reason for the Evaluation Request Contrary to McCray's assertion that she was asked to submit to a psychological evaluation based solely upon "too many emails," MDCSB repeatedly explained verbally and in writing to McCray that it needed the evaluation based on the volume and content of those emails. In the emails, McCray complained of unspecified harassment, bullying, stalking, discrimination, unspecified safety violations, and security violations that she claimed were causing her abrupt panic attacks, breathing problems, chest pain, and causing her to seek medical assistance. At each CFR and in the CFR summaries, McCray was advised that MDCSB wanted her to participate in a fitness-for- duty examination because of her own complaints of school-related "emotional, psychological, and spiritual" distress. Notice of Specific Charges McCray points out that she was not provided with a Notice of Specific Charges until February 18, 2019, only 11 days prior to the final hearing and approximately two months after MDCSB's termination recommendation. Due process required that McCray be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to suspension or termination and the right to a post-termination evidentiary hearing. Prior to termination, McCray was given five notices of CFRs and at least three CFR summaries explaining the need for her to participate in a fitness-for-duty evaluation, and that failure to do so was a violation of MDCSB policy and insubordination. McCray was also notified on December 18, 2018, by email and in writing, that MDCSB intended to recommend her suspension without pay and dismissal for just cause, "including but not limited to: gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Policies 4161, Fitness for Duty, 4210, Standards of Ethical conduct, and 4210, Code of Ethics." Despite being provided multiple opportunities prior to termination to explain her basis for fearing for her safety and refusal to attend a fitness-for–duty evaluation, McCray refused to do so. After the MDCSB meeting on December 19, 2018, at which McCray was recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal, she was provided notification of the action by letter dated December 20, 2018, which mirrored the basis for discipline contained in the December 18, 2018, letter. This notification also provided her with notice of how to contest the proposed action. MDCSB policies do not specify a time frame within which a Notice of Specific Charges must be issued for non- instructional employees. At no time prior to the issuance of the Notice of Specific Charges did McCray request any further explanation. There is no record of any pre-hearing discovery request by McCray regarding the specific factual or legal basis for the termination. It should be noted that the Notice of Specific Charges identifies violations of MDCSB Policy 4161— "Fitness for Duty" and "Gross Insubordination"--the same reasons for proposed discipline identified prior to the MDCSB action of December 19, 2018. McCray was provided a full evidentiary hearing at the final hearing of this matter. McCray received all pre and post-termination due process to which she was entitled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Carla McCray guilty of misconduct in office and gross insubordination and upholding her termination from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 3rd day of June, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Catherine A. Riggins, Esquire 18520 Northwest 67th Avenue, Suite 105 Miami, Florida 33015 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue As stipulated by the parties, the issue in this case is whether there is “just cause” to terminate the employment of Patricia Davis.
Findings Of Fact The School Board employs Ms. Davis as a bus paraprofessional. Ms. Davis has satisfactorily served the School Board as a bus paraprofessional for approximately ten years, without any significant discipline. Ms. Davis is a continuing status employee. Ms. Davis is covered by the CTA-CU bargaining unit Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). During the 2009-2010 school year, until February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis was assigned to regularly work on bus number 2407. Ms. Marvel Ann Figueroa was the driver regularly assigned to bus number 2407. During the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Davis was assigned to supervise Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students during transport to and from school on bus number 2407. During the 2009-2010 school year, until February 8, 2010, C.P.2/ was regularly transported on bus number 2407, to and from Palm Pointe Educational Research School (Palm Pointe). C.P. is a student with autism. During the 2009-2010 school year, until February 8, 2010, C.P. was under Ms. Davis’ supervision during transport on bus number 2407. Ms. Davis was aware that C.P. was non-verbal. Ms. Davis recognized that student C.P. was an ESE student with autism. Ms. Davis knew that C.P. was required to use a safety harness/E-Z vest during transport. As required by School Board rules, C.P.’s Emergency Information ESE Bus Form was provided to the staff on bus number 2407, and located on the bus on February 8, 2010. The form provided minimal information. It provided family information and contact numbers. A block labeled "Non-verbal" is checked. In a space labeled "Special instructions for Dealing with Student," one word appears: "Autism." In the "Special Bus Equipment" section, "E-Z on Vest" is checked. School officials knew that within the past two years C.P.’s behavior included vigorous head banging. They also knew that within the past two years C.P. had worn a protective helmet. C.P.’s educational plans included techniques developed to manage head banging and other self-injurious behavior. The school did not inform Ms. Davis of the history of head banging or of the risk of the behavior. This information did not appear on the ESE form. The School Board did not provide the bus with a helmet or other protective or cushioning gear. On February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis was working on bus number 2407. On the morning of February 8, 2010, before boarding students, Ms. Davis performed the pre-trip inspection required by her job duties. It included verifying that the seat belts were securely attached to the seats and that all seat belts were in working condition. Ms. Davis was not feeling well that morning. But she chose to work rather than call in sick. This was poor judgment that contributed to the events of the morning. Ms. Davis and the driver, Ms. Figueroa, discussed Ms. Davis’ illness. They agreed that Ms. Figueroa would get off the bus to escort the children to their seats. This service was a responsibility of Ms. Davis, the bus paraprofessional. On the morning of February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis sat at the front of the bus. Her training and instructions said that the aide was to sit at the back of the bus. But the Transportation Director had repeatedly approved seating charts for the bus that showed Ms. Davis sitting at the front. Consequently, the School Board had authorized Ms. Davis to sit in the front. Ms. Davis’ job duties also required her to constantly monitor the students. Although Ms. Davis periodically looked around to check on the students, she did not maintain a constant view of them. Due to her illness, Ms. Davis struggled to stay awake. Her head nodded and her eyes periodically closed momentarily. Ms. Davis was fighting sleep. She never fell completely asleep. But she did not maintain constant observation of the students. C.P. and three other students were riding bus number 2407 on the route to Palm Pointe the morning of February 8, 2010. Ms. Figueroa properly placed C.P. in his E-Z vest and secured him by his harness in the middle seat of his bus seat row. He was not seated beside the window. During the ride to Palm Pointe, C.P. became upset. He began engaging in self-stimulatory behavior, looking out the window, shaking his hands, and rocking back and forward in his seat. The self-stimulatory behavior was intermittent. This behavior, while often and typically exhibited by autistic children, was more vigorous behavior than C.P. had previously exhibited while riding the bus. As the drive to Palm Pointe continued, C.P. began to hit his hands and then his head against the side of the bus and the bus window. He rocked back and forward in his seat. He leaned and rocked from side to side as he banged his head on the bus window. This behavior continued for about eight minutes. Before that day, C.P. had never exhibited those behaviors while riding the bus. On February 8, 2010, C.P. had been riding bus number 2407, since the beginning of the school year, about six months earlier. Ms. Davis and the bus driver noticed the behavior quickly. They were very concerned about C.P.'s behavior and safety, as well as the safety of the other children on the bus. The bus driver could not pull over, because of the traffic conditions and restrictions resulting from the roads on which she was driving. Ms. Davis did not move C.P. farther away from the window. Unfastening C.P. from his harness and attempting to move him would have been dangerous for him and for the others on the bus. Ms. Davis and Ms. Figueroa were panicked and frightened. They discussed what steps they could take. They were hesitant to physically approach C.P. because they remembered being told in training that physical efforts to control a child with autism would likely cause them to become more violent. Ms. Davis’ training required her to seek help from a manager if she did not know how to handle a situation. Throughout the bus ride on February 8, 2010, as the situation worsened, Ms. Davis never used the available cell phone to seek assistance from a manager. Near the end of the ride, C.P.’s head banging broke the window and cut C.P. He began bleeding, but not profusely. Ms. Davis got the phone number of C.P.’s mother from the ESE form and called her. C.P.’s mother asked them to continue to the school and said she would meet them there. Ms. Davis’ call for assistance came too late. Her failure to promptly seek assistance was a neglect of her duties and a failure to exercise sound professional judgment. As the bus pulled in and stopped at the school, C.P. calmed. Ms. Davis approached him and comforted him verbally and physically. Other school employees boarded the bus and escorted C.P. off where his mother met him. The emergency intervention duties of a bus paraprofessional, like Ms. Davis, include providing ESE students physical assistance, if needed, during an emergency. Ms. Davis had seen C.P. mildly agitated before February 8, 2010. But there is no persuasive evidence that his actions included banging his head against the window or anything else, or that he had previously engaged in any self-injurious activities in Ms. Davis' presence. C.P.'s activities when agitated had included rocking, jerking, rubbing his fingers together, and humming. These are all typical self-calming behaviors shown by individuals with autism. They were not unusual for a student with C.P.'s disability. The behaviors were to be expected and would not have triggered concerns sufficient to report the behavior. In the past when C.P. became agitated, Ms. Davis had calmed him by offering cookies and speaking quietly to him. On February 8, 2010, these techniques worked briefly. C.P. paused his head banging, but then resumed. During Ms. Davis’ ten years of employment, the School Board provided her 92 hours of job-related training, an average of 9.2 hours per year. Of that, 20 hours were her initial training. Ms. Davis attended the classes and successfully completed them. The instruction covered a wide range of topics including equipment, procedures for emergencies, such as traffic accidents, school board policies, and employee relations. The training provided by the School Board included initial and refresher training in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Ms. Davis' most recent CPI training was August, 2007. She successfully completed it. The CPI training is general and addressed a range of situations. It includes training in verbal and non-verbal techniques. The techniques range from soothing and calming to physical restraint. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the CPI or other training specifically addressed the unique problems and dangers presented by a student in need of physical restraint in a moving vehicle. The testimony of School Board witnesses who reviewed the video tape of the incident and the reports highlighted the difficulty of the situation. The School Board witnesses believed that C.P. was sitting in a window seat and said Ms. Davis should have relocated him. Other School Board witnesses, and common sense, more reasonably maintained that trying to relocate a physically agitated student in a moving bus would endanger him and the other passengers. The CPI training did not include techniques specific to the unique issues presented by students with autism. It did not provide information about how to address head banging or suggest techniques such as cushioning the blows’ impact when a person is banging his head against a hard object. Typically, the school’s training involved two days of in-service presentations about general issues, transportation, student and personnel issues, including School Board policy, equipment, safety, and duties of bus drivers and aides. The training in aggregate provided little specific information about students with autism and nothing useful about ways to manage behavior such as that exhibited by C.P. on February 8, 2010. The School Board provided Ms. Davis training in non- violent crisis intervention. It involved techniques for dealing with children who are acting out in an aggressive or violent manner. The training did not emphasize or focus on issues involving behavior of students with autism. It presented techniques as equally applicable and effective for all student populations, including ESE students with autism. The training, however, provided that employees should call their manager for assistance when faced with a problem they cannot handle. Autism presents widely varied types of behavior. The crisis intervention techniques suggest engaging students in conversation and establishing a relationship with them through verbal interaction. This is not particularly useful or instructive in dealing with situations concerning non-verbal children. One of the district's training documents is titled "How well do you KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT ?????." This training document is a representative sample of the training material that the district relies upon as having prepared Ms. Davis for the student's head banging. The information it provided did not. This is all the document had to say about possible behaviors of children with autism and how to react to them. Child may not be able to voice his/her discomfort, this may be apparent by different types of behavior: Rocking Banging with head or hands Biting Yelling, etc. In retrospect things could be fine, and child may exhibit inappropriate language and behavior. Modification training may be required to minimize their actions and reactions, to a more acceptable behavior. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY The information in other training materials is similarly non-specific and not helpful in the emergency Ms. Davis faced. The CBA states: “[a]ny member of the Classified Unit may be dismissed by the School Board during his/her term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, for “just cause.” The CBA defines “just cause” to include “insubordination; neglect of duty; unsatisfactory work performance; and violation of School Board Policy and/or Rules . . .”. School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), provides a non-inclusive list of infractions that support disciplinary action. They include: neglect of duty; violation of any rule, policy, or regulation; sleeping during working hours; violation of safety rules; violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession; violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; violation of the Standards of Competent and Professional Performance; and violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and employees. The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001), and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006) require Ms. Davis to have concern for the students as her primary professional concern; to seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity; and to make reasonable efforts to protect students from harmful conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered pursuant to section 435.06, suspending Respondent, Patricia Davis, from employment for a period of one year, starting November 9, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 1st day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Between December 6, 1994, and October 15, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver and, subsequently, as a materials handling technician who delivered textbooks and supplies. His performance evaluations for that work were satisfactory or better. Prior to October 15, 1995, a teacher aide position became vacant at H. L. Johnson Elementary School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. This vacancy was in the special education classroom taught by Harriet Lurie. Although he had no experience or training for this type work, Respondent was hired to fill this vacancy. Respondent began this employment on October 15, 1995. The students in this classroom require constant supervision and assistance. Ms. Lurie, an experienced ESE teacher, the Respondent, and one other teacher aide were expected to provide the care and supervision required by these students. Respondent and Ms. Lurie were unable to develop an effective working relationship. The conflicts between Respondent and Ms. Lurie escalated, despite the efforts of the principal, Penelope Lopez, to encourage them to work together. December 15, 1995, was the last day of school prior the Christmas holidays. Following an incident between Respondent and Ms. Lurie earlier that day, Respondent appeared in Ms. Lopez's office and requested that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's class to any other available position. Ms. Lopez explained to Respondent that there were no other available positions. Because he was adamant about not returning to Ms. Lurie's classroom, Ms. Lopez agreed during that meeting to let Respondent perform custodial duties for the remainder of the day. January 2, 1996, was the first day of school following the Christmas holidays. On that date, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office and met with her prior to the beginning of school. Respondent again asked that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent became upset when Ms. Lopez denied his request for transfer and thereafter gave him a written reprimand. The reprimand, which accurately reflects efforts by Ms. Lopez to resolve the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I have had conferences with you on December 6, 12 and 15, 1995 and numerous other impromptu meetings in which we discussed your concerns, my concerns and conflicts you were having with the teacher and the other teacher aide in the K-1B classroom (Ms. Lurie's classroom). The students in this classroom need consistent supervision in a warm nurturing environment. I am very unhappy with the conflict going on between you and the teacher and you and the other aide, at times in front of the students . . . There appears to be no effective working relationship between you and these associates . . . * * * 6. As a teacher-aide (sic), you report to the teacher in the K-1B class and work under her direct supervision. You are expected to follow directions and not argue with her . . . I have requested at each meeting with you to work cooperatively with the teacher and your coworker to solve problems or enhance the classroom setting and work as a team. I had to remove you from the classroom on December 15, 1995 due to a conflict with the teacher. Since you have not heeded my previous advice, I'm presenting you with this written reprimand as disciplinary action. I expect your behavior to improve immediately in all of these areas. Should you fail to improve your attendance and abide by established and published rules and duties of your position, you will subject yourself to further discipline. After Ms. Lopez gave Respondent the written reprimand, on January 2, 1996, she instructed him to return to his duties in Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent refused this instruction and left the school campus. Respondent did not return to the school campus on January 2, 1996. Respondent had seven days of sick leave available for his use as of January 2, 1996. Further, he qualified for additional unpaid leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), 29 USC Sections 2611 et seq. Respondent did not requested nor had he been given any type of authorized leave for January 2, 1996. Respondent asserts that the School Board has no grounds to terminate his employment for his conduct on January 2, 1996, because he left school to go visit his doctor. The assertion that he left campus on January 2, 1996, because he was sick or in need of a doctor is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this proceeding. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that after he left the school campus on January 2, 1996, Respondent spent the balance of the day attempting to contact district administrators to complain about the letter of reprimand he had received. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent did not seek medical attention on January 2, 1996. 1/ Respondent disobeyed Ms. Lopez's clear and direct instructions on January 2, 1996, and he willfully neglected his official responsibilities. This action was not justified by a need for medical attention. On January 3, 1996, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office at approximately 7:45 a.m. Ms. Lopez told Respondent that he was needed in Ms. Lurie's class and told him to report to duty. Respondent replied that he was going to the doctor and left school campus. When Ms. Lopez asked why he had not gone to the doctor when he was away from school on January 2, Respondent replied that he had been too busy attempting to do something about the reprimand he had been issued. Respondent was entitled to use sick leave to visit the doctor on January 3, 1996, and he was entitled to use paid sick leave, to the extent of its availability, between January 3, 1996, and the time of his tests on January 16, 1996. Good Samaritan Primary Care is a group of doctors who have associated for the practice of medicine. Leonard A. Sukienik, D.O., and Karen Kutikoff, M.D., are employed by that group practice. On January 3, 1996, Respondent was examined by Dr. Sukienik. Following that examination, Dr. Sukienik scheduled certain medical tests for Respondent to be conducted January 16, 1996. Dr. Sukienik wrote the following note dated January 3, 1996: To whom it may concern, Mr. Frank Sedor is a patient in my office and is noted to have stress related anxiety attacks with chest pain symptoms. This stress may be related to his job and Mr. Sedor may benefit from time off from work. Respondent returned to Johnson Elementary and met with Ms. Lopez at approximately 1:30 p.m. Respondent gave Ms. Lopez the note written by Dr. Sukienik. When Ms. Lopez asked Respondent to return to work, he informed her that he was not going to return to work until after the tests scheduled for January 16, 1996, had been completed. Respondent thereafter left the school campus. Respondent did not request any type of leave on January 3, 1996. Prior to her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez did not intend to recommend that Respondent's employment be terminated because she hoped that the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie could be resolved. After her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez sent a memorandum to Louis Haddad, Jr., the coordinator of Petitioner's Employee Relations office in which she requested that further disciplinary action be taken against Respondent for his refusal to report to his classroom as instructed on January 2, 1996, and for thereafter leaving the school site. The School Board, based on the superintendent's recommendation, voted to terminate Respondent's employment at its meeting of February 7, 1996, on grounds of insubordination and willful neglect of duty based on Respondent's conduct on January 2, 1996. 2/ The School Board is not seeking to terminate Respondent's employment for conduct after January 2, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. The final order should also terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher aide. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s ten-workday suspension from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board (“School Board” or “Petitioner”).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent was hired as a full-time teacher at Mandarin Lakes K-8 Center Academy (“Mandarin Lakes”) and was employed there as a teacher of emotionally behavior disabled (“EBD”) students when all events material to this case took place. She has been employed in the School District for 14 years and, prior to that, for two years in the School District of Broward County, Florida. She has been an EBD teacher throughout her career. As a teacher, Respondent was subject to School Board policies and the collective bargaining agreement under United Teachers of Dade, as well as the Florida State Board of Education. During the 2019-2020 school year, D.J. and I.N. were students in Respondent’s classroom. D.J. was in the EBD class, which is a class for students with an emotional disability. No evidence of record concerning whether I.N. is an EBD student, as well, was presented. I.N. was a student along with D.J. in Respondent’s class who is currently in the fourth grade, however, they are not friends he said. I.N. had heard Respondent yell at D.J. prior to this incident. On October 10, 2019, D.J. asked Respondent to use the bathroom and Respondent said, “No.” D.J. said he was going to pee on himself. This was known by Respondent as behavior she had seen often after the lunch period when the students were not eager to return to school work. Respondent did not allow D.J. to use the bathroom. Respondent called D.J. “pissy,” and it caused the students in the class, including I.N., to laugh. After that, D.J. started to get mad or angry, and D.J. started to hit his head with his hand. Also, D.J. felt “bad” about the situation. Respondent did nothing to stop the students from laughing at D.J. Respondent then asked D.J. if he wanted to be Baker Acted after she observed him picking a scab, which caused it to bleed, and hitting himself on the head. When he got home later that day, D.J. was still upset, so he told his mother what happened at school and asked her what a Baker Act was. D.J.’s siblings have severe mental health issues and have been Baker Acted before; therefore, it was concerning to C.R. (D.J.’s mother) that Respondent made the Baker Act comment to D.J. D.J. told his mother that Respondent called him “pissy” because he went to the bathroom a lot. D.J. was taking medication at the time, of which Respondent was aware, that caused him to have to use the bathroom a lot. D.J. was seven years old when he testified at hearing and was recalling an incident that happened when he was five to six years old. After the incident, D.J. started to say that he wanted to be Baker Acted so he could be with his brother, who at the time was subject to a Baker Act commitment. At that time, C.R. wrote a statement detailing the incident from her perspective, which was consistent with her testimony at hearing. Respondent admitted to using the word “pissy.” Respondent also admitted to making a comment about Baker Acting D.J. because D.J. pulled at a scab and rubbed the blood on himself and also because he smacked himself on the head. Later, Respondent admitted during cross-examination that the scab incident did not occur on the same day as the Baker Act comment and was unrelated. She further admitted that she is not qualified to Baker Act someone and was not serious about D.J. being Baker Acted. This was an “unfortunate incident,” and Respondent apologized for it. D.J. has remained Respondent’s student for nearly a year and a half since the two incidents occurred in 2019. Respondent has maintained a good relationship with both D.J. and his mother. The School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the classroom teachers’ union, have agreed to be bound by the principle of progressive discipline and that discipline imposed shall be consistent with that principle. Accordingly, they have agreed that the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Miami-Dade County School Board issue a written reprimand to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Lara Jones, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 27th day of June, 2000.
