The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment contract due to repeated acts of harassment, gross insubordination, and violations of Petitioner's policies.
Findings Of Fact Until her last day of work on March 15, 2004, Respondent had worked for over 13 years at Stanley Switlik Elementary School (Switlik) in Marathon. Switlik is a public school. For most of her career with Petitioner, Respondent worked as an aid in the exceptional student education (ESE) prekindergarten program. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent worked as a 1:1 aid to a student in a varying exceptionalities class. At all material times, Respondent was classified as noncertified instructional staff. For at least the past couple of years, Respondent was dissatisfied by much of what took place around her at work and in the local education community. In the past two years, Respondent has filed complaints with three federal agencies (Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), two state agencies (Department of Education and Department of Children and Family Services), and one local agency (Petitioner). The 13 subjects of these complaints include two principals of Switlik, two superintendents of Monroe County Public Schools, various teachers and teacher aids, and a relative of her husband. The record discloses no basis for finding any merit whatsoever in any of these complaints. In June 2002, Respondent walked into a classroom at the Grace Jones Day Care Center, which is a not-for-profit school in Respondent’s neighborhood, and entered a class with sleeping preschool children. Respondent approached the new director of Grace Jones and confronted her about the school's curriculum. The bewildered director spoke to Respondent for a few moments before realizing that Respondent had no children at the school. In the ensuing weeks, Respondent continued to challenge the director about the school’s curriculum, warning her that she needed to change the curriculum or Respondent would shut down the school. One time, Respondent warned the director that “you better watch your white ass.” Seeing the director smoking a cigarette on school grounds during breaks, Respondent began videotaping the director from the street to document what Respondent viewed as illegal behavior. The purpose of Respondent’s actions is unclear, but does not seem to have been the betterment of the educational program at Grace Jones. When children in the custody of a relative of her husband attended Grace Jones, Respondent never volunteered to help at the school. However unclear the purpose of Respondent’s actions, their effect was to frighten the director, the teachers, and the students and disrupt the educational process at the school. The director eventually obtained a judicial order prohibiting Respondent from trespassing onto the Grace Jones grounds. Respondent repeatedly involved herself with the education of the two children who were in the custody of a relative of Respondent's husband. When one of the children was later attending Switlik, while Respondent was employed at the school, Respondent telephoned the child’s guardian and informed her that the child had been misbehaving in school. When the guardian called the principal, the principal stated that the child had not been misbehaving. Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion directly to the child’s guardian. Later, in January 2004, Respondent informed the guardian and the guardian’s sister, who is the biological mother of the children, that Switlik was failing one of the children. Again, Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion. Despite receiving a warning from the principal not to disclose confidential student information, Respondent continued to try to obtain educational information about these children, even though she had no right to such information. Frustrated that the guardian would not remove one or both of the children from Switlik, Respondent threatened to call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use. Although she may never have followed through on this threat, she did call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the children’s biological mother was residing with them and the guardian, evidently in violation of some sort of prohibition against this living arrangement. The record permits no findings as to whether the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use or the biological mother was residing with her children and the guardian, but the record permits the finding that, in both cases, the intention of Respondent in threatening to call or calling the authorities was not to correct an intolerable situation, but was to coerce the guardian to accede to Respondent's demands. While employed at Switlik, Respondent had numerous confrontations with numerous employees, including superiors. Two of the more prominent confrontations involved Respondent’s confrontation with a school bus driver, who occupied a managerial role at Switlik as to transportation, and two aids, who worked in a Head Start prekindergarten classroom at Switlik. These incidents occurred during the 2002-03 school year. The problem with the school bus driver began in 2002. Escorting one or more children to or from the school buses, as was her responsibility, Respondent entered a bus loaded with children and began directing them to sit down. When the bus driver, who was on the bus, told Respondent to leave the bus, Respondent angrily accused the bus driver of failing to discharge her duty to protect the safety of the children. After receiving complaints from the driver about Respondent and from Respondent about the driver and the students standing in the bus, the principal met with Respondent and told her not to interfere with the bus driver and her supervision of the students already on the bus. Despite the warning, Respondent later engaged in a nearly identical confrontation during the 2002-03 school year. When the principal sided again with the bus driver, Respondent demanded a meeting with the superintendent to discuss her problems with the bus driver and, now, the principal. Ignored by the superintendent, Respondent contacted a school board member and asked for a meeting. Obtaining no satisfaction from the school board member, Respondent contacted the United States Department of Education, Civil Rights Office, and Florida Department of Education with her complaints about the bus driver and the refusal of Petitioner's representatives to resolve the situation. The problem with the Head Start aids initially involved their choice of classroom attire. They wore shorts, which Respondent considered to be cut too short. Possibly arising out of Respondent's frustration at not being allowed to wear a head scarf at school, Respondent complained to the principal that the two women were allowed to wear shorts. A picture of the shorts revealed that they were not suggestive or inappropriate in length or style. To the contrary, shorts permitted the aids to perform the physical activity imposed upon them in working with young children. After Respondent complained about the aids' shorts, the aids began to lock the classroom door to prevent Respondent from taking a short-cut through the room when students were present. Respondent complained about this, but, again, the principal sided with the aids and directed Respondent to stop cutting through the occupied classroom--a directive that Respondent repeatedly ignored. Twice bested by the aids, Respondent pressed her complaints about them to higher authorities. Respondent informed the Monroe County director of Head Start of the problem. When the county director referred Respondent back to the principal, Respondent threatened to contact the Southeast Director of Head Start in Atlanta and government representatives in Washington. On October 8, 2003, the principal and other of Respondent's employees, including the Human Relations Director, participated in a meeting requested by Respondent to discuss her concerns about events that had taken place at Switlik over a period of time. At some point, the principal warned Respondent about her disruption of the school environment and her confrontational behavior. The principal warned that Respondent's unprofessional behavior would lead to termination. Respondent became belligerent and loudly denounced the Human Relations Director as a liar. Two days later, Respondent refused to sign a memorandum outlining what had taken place at the meeting. The above incidents are largely drawn from Respondent's testimony. However, there were numerous other confrontations, such as with an office manager who asked that Respondent wait a moment before the woman could get her paycheck or repeated abuse of school email to hector Petitioner's employees. There were also numerous other examples of insubordination, such as Respondent's refusal to sign a statement acknowledging Petitioner's anti-harassment policy and her refusal to sign her evaluation at the end of the 2002-03 school year, which warned that her noncompliance with Petitioner's policies was disrupting school operations. Dissatisfied with the resolution of all of these matters, Respondent also filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about at least some of them. Two principals over several years have tried patiently to counsel Respondent regarding her strident, uncooperative behavior. At meetings, Respondent routinely took the offensive, yelling and denouncing the participants by, among other things, claiming that the current principal was not doing her job. An endless pattern of complaints about problems perceived by no one but Respondent preceded complaints about never-commenced or incorrectly resolved investigations. The disruption upon the educational process was evident and substantial. Respondent has not been chastened by less severe job actions than termination. When Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days from April 30 to May 2, 2003, Respondent's response, upon her return to work, was to file a complaint about the principal and, after a month of inaction on her complaint, to email the superintendent and demand to know the status of his investigation of her complaint. Failing to obtain a satisfactory response from the superintendent, Respondent submitted complaints about the principal and superintendent to the Florida Department of Education. Finally, on August 14, 2003, Respondent emailed the School Board members and asked for a meeting about this problem. By undated letter in February or March 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised Respondent that she was suspended with pay until the School Board meeting of April 1, 2004, at which he would recommend termination. The letter states that Respondent has violated Sections 1012.27(5) and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, The Code of Ethics for Education Professionals, and Petitioner's policies 6.37, 6.38, 2.70, 3.40, and 5.70. By letter dated March 22, 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised that he would recommend at the April 1 School Board meeting that it convert Respondent's suspension with pay to a suspension without pay, pending final action on his recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment. Petitioner's policy 6.37 provides that Petitioner's superintendent may suspend an employee until the next meeting of the School Board. The policy provides a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to any employee who has a property interest in his or her job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John Padget, Superintendent Monroe County School Board Post Office Box 1788 Key West, Florida 33041-1788 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Scott E. Siverson Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Scott C. Black Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue The issue in the case is whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of the Respondent, a school bus operator.
Findings Of Fact Luis R. Rosario (Respondent) is a school bus operator employed by the Lee County School District (District). The Respondent has been employed as a bus operator since August 1994. The Respondent's performance evaluations have been acceptable. The sole exception was noted in his 1996-1997 evaluation, which found that he needed to improve in the category identified as "uses appropriate techniques in maintaining order among students on the bus." The subsequent evaluations do not indicate that the issue continued to be a concern after the 1996-1997 evaluation period. On February 28, 2000, the Respondent was transporting students to and from Trafalgar Middle School. In the afternoon of February 28, a student identified for purposes of this order as D.M. attempted to board the bus in the afternoon. D.M. was not a regular passenger on the Respondent's bus. According to District policy, in order for a student to ride a bus other than his or her assigned bus, a student must have a note signed by a parent and approved by an authorized school administrator. Some schools, including Trafalgar Middle School, use a system of bus passes to control bus ridership. When D.M. boarded the Respondent's bus on the afternoon of February 28, 2000, he did not have a bus pass or a note from a parent. According to the Respondent, D.M. has friends on his bus and has made prior attempts to board the bus without a pass or a note. D.M. supposedly told the Respondent that he had given him the note and had ridden the bus to Trafalgar Middle School on the morning of February 28. The Respondent did not recall having D.M. on the bus that morning and did not recall receiving any note from him. The Respondent refused to permit D.M. to board the bus. There is no evidence that D.M. provided a note or a bus pass to the Respondent on February 28. When the Respondent refused to permit D.M. to board the bus, D.M. became argumentative and hostile towards the Respondent. The Respondent argued with D.M. D.M. left the bus, spoke to a school resource officer, and then returned to the bus with the school principal, Joseph Vetter. Mr. Vetter and the Respondent became involved in a discussion regarding whether D.M. should be permitted to ride the bus. Mr. Vetter was unhappy with the Respondent's behavior towards D.M. and towards himself. Mr. Vetter testified that the Respondent was "yelling" at D.M. and at the principal, and was "rude" and "disrespectful." During the interaction between the principal and the Respondent, D.M. continued to act in a disruptive manner. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's behavior towards D.M. was inappropriate. The principal testified that the Respondent's rudeness and abusiveness reached a level that the principal had never previously experienced during his lifetime, yet the principal was specifically able only to recall that the Respondent repeatedly stated that D.M. did not belong on his bus. There is no evidence that the Respondent cursed in the presence of the principal or D.M. Although the Respondent may have raised his voice towards D.M. and the principal, the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's behavior towards D.M. was so inappropriate as to warrant a verbal reprimand by the principal in front of the Respondent's passengers. Mr. Vetter left the bus and told the Respondent that he would be contacting the Respondent's supervisor. The Respondent, apparently dissatisfied with the result of the interaction, followed the principal off the bus and briefly continued to argue before returning to the bus and leaving the campus. The District asserts that, as the bus left the school's bus boarding area, the Respondent cursed at the principal. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The District presented the testimony of several students in support of the assertion. The testimony of the students lacks sufficient precision to establish that the Respondent cursed at the principal. The students offered contradictory testimony about where they were seated on the bus and what words they actually heard the Respondent speak. Further, an investigator for the District interviewed several students after the incident occurred. The investigator prepared typewritten statements, allegedly based on what the students told him, and provided them to Trafalgar Middle School officials. The Trafalgar Middle School officials presented the statements to the students and told them to sign the statements. The students did not read the statements before they signed them. The written statements prepared by the District's investigator contain substantial derogatory information about the Respondent. According to the students who signed the statements, much of the information contained therein is false. At the hearing, the students who signed the prepared statements denied providing the false information to the investigator. The Petition for Suspension in this case alleges that the Principal of Trafalgar Middle School intervened in an altercation between D.M. and the Respondent after viewing the Respondent screaming at D.M. The evidence establishes that the principal became involved after D.M., failing to gain entry onto the Respondent's bus, found the principal and brought him to the bus. The Petition alleges that the Respondent yelled profanity directed towards the principal as he drove away in the bus and that the profanity continued during the bus ride. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent yelled any profanity at all. Other than as set forth herein, there is no credible evidence that any use of profanity continued throughout the bus ride. The Petition alleges that some students in the bus were fearful of the Respondent's behavior and his use of profanity. There is no evidence that on February 28, 2000, the students feared the Respondent in any manner. The Petition alleges that the Respondent made threatening statements suggesting bodily harm to some students and to the principal. There is no evidence that the Respondent threatened bodily harm towards any person whatsoever. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, following the argument with the principal, and the principal's threat to call the driver's supervisor, the Respondent mumbled to himself that he did not need "this damn job" as he pulled his bus away from the Trafalgar Middle School boarding area. There was testimony from some students that they had heard the Respondent say "hell" or "damn" previously, but the testimony was insufficient to establish with specificity the circumstances of the reported events. The Respondent has been disciplined previously for accusations similar to those involved in the instant case. In May 1999, the Respondent received a written warning regarding use of profanity and improper behavior towards a student at Gulf Middle School. The evidence establishes that the Respondent reacted inappropriately when confronted with the alleged May 1999 allegations. When District officials attempted to address the situation, the Respondent became agitated and aggressive towards the people in the room. The written warning was issued to address the matter. There was no evidence presented in the instant case to establish the alleged use of profanity in May 1999. The District offered testimony related to an incident in January 1999, at Diplomat Middle School where the Respondent was accused of yelling at the school's assistant principal as the bus drove away. The evidence fails to establish specifically what the Respondent was yelling at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Benefits Pending Termination of Employment dated April 14, 2000, and providing an award of back pay and benefits to the Respondent retroactive to the date of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor M. Arias, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bruce Harter, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Denson first became employed with the School District in May 1992 as a helping teacher at a behavioral school. He was transferred to attending the disciplinary room and remained in that position until 1996, when he resigned to take a position at a juvenile prison. The new job fell through, and he became reemployed with the School District in 1997. He remained employed with the School District until May 30, 2005, when he resigned to work in the private sector as an air- conditioner technician. In April 2006, Mr. Denson became employed with the School District as a bus driver. Pursuant to the Support Personnel Association of Lee County Collective Bargaining Agreement (SPALC Agreement), Mr. Denson is an annual contract employee. On or about July 31, 2006, at approximately 1:28 p.m., Mr. Denson was driving school bus number 533 south on Southeast 8th Place in Cape Coral, Florida. He was doing a dry run or practice run of the school bus route for which he had bid to make sure that he could make the trip in the time allotted. There were no students in the bus. Neither the horn nor the radio on the bus was functional. A maintenance crew was working at a residence located at 3138 Southeast 8th Place in Cape Coral. A black Ford F150 truck with a trailer belonging to the lawn maintenance company was parked on the side of the road, blocking the road. As a result, Mr. Denson could not pass the truck with the school bus he was driving. Erick Baker, one of the lawn maintenance workers, was at the trailer putting up some equipment and putting on a backpack, wand-type weed sprayer containing Ortho Weed-B-Gone, a chemical weed killer. The wand of the sprayer is about two feet long and is activated by pressing a trigger. Mr. Denson signaled with his hands for someone to move the truck. Mr. Baker signaled to Mr. Denson, suggesting that he was not the driver and to wait a moment. Mr. Baker began to walk toward the house while spraying weeds. Mr. Denson opened the bus door and yelled that he needed to have the truck moved so he could proceed with his route. Mr. Baker continued to spray the weeds. Mr. Baker may have not heard Mr. Denson because one worker was operating a leaf blower and another was operating a riding lawn mower. Mr. Denson then exited the bus and approached Mr. Baker, who had his back to Mr. Denson. Mr. Baker, with the sprayer wand in his hand, turned toward Mr. Denson. The wand was pointed in the direction of Mr. Denson's face, approximately six to 12 inches away from Mr. Denson's eyes and mouth. Mr. Denson felt threatened, knocked the sprayer away, and struck Mr. Baker in the head. Mr. Baker never sprayed Mr. Denson with the chemicals in the sprayer. Mr. Denson claims that he struck Mr. Baker in self- defense, stating that when Mr. Baker turned around, Mr. Denson told him he needed to get the sprayer out of his face and that Mr. Baker replied that he would "spray Mr. Denson's ass." Mr. Baker denies saying that he would spray Mr. Denson. Mr. Baker's testimony is more credible. The two men fell to the ground with Mr. Denson on top of Mr. Baker. Mr. Denson hit Mr. Baker in the forehead again. Mr. Baker never struck Mr. Denson. Another worker with the maintenance crew grabbed Mr. Denson and pulled him off Mr. Baker. Mr. Denson returned to his bus and used his cell telephone to contact the Transportation West Zone Office of the School District to report the incident. Mr. Baker called the police to report the incident. After the altercation, Mr. Baker told Mr. Denson that he should have sprayed Mr. Denson. Officer B. W. Kearney of the Cape Coral Police Department was dispatched to the scene. Officer Kearney completed an Incident/Investigation Report, indicating that he was dispatched to a battery. In the report, Officer Kearney stated that Mr. Denson admitted punching Mr. Baker; however, Mr. Denson felt he acted in self-defense. Officer Kearney noted that Mr. Baker had no visible injuries and declined medical attention. Mr. Baker did not press charges, and Mr. Denson was not arrested. In response to Mr. Denson's call, Dale Maybin, assistant supervisor of the Transportation West Office, reported to the scene of the incident where he spoke with Officer Kearney. Mr. Maybin later submitted an Investigation Request form along with a written statement to the Department of Professional Standards and Equity. Mr. Denson was informed via certified letter dated August 7, 2006, from the superintendent that he was being suspended with pay pending the outcome of the School District's investigation into the matter. In accordance with Section 7.09 of the SPALC Agreement, a predetermination conference was scheduled with Mr. Denson for October 26, 2006, to review the allegations and to give Mr. Denson an opportunity to respond. Mr. Denson was advised of the conference via certified letter dated October 11, 2006, from Dr. Gregory K. Adkins, executive director of Human Resources and Employee Relations. The letter included a copy of the School District's investigative file. The predetermination conference took place as scheduled and was attended by Mr. Denson and Suzan Rudd, Island Coast FEA Service Unit director. Mr. Denson and Ms. Rudd were given an opportunity to address the allegations. Subsequent to the predetermination conference, a determination was made that probable cause existed to discipline Mr. Denson for his conduct. A certified letter dated October 30, 2006, was sent to Mr. Denson, advising him of the probable cause determination. The letter also advised that a recommendation would be made to the superintendent that Mr. Denson be terminated from his employment with the School District. By letter dated November 8, 2006, Robert J. Coleman, Esquire, advised the School Board's attorney that he had been retained to represent Mr. Denson. A Petition for Termination of Employment (Petition) was prepared, and a copy was forwarded to Mr. Denson's attorney on November 9, 2006. The Petition advised that the matter of Mr. Denson's termination was scheduled to be heard by the School Board on December 5, 2006. On November 13, 2006, Mr. Denson's attorney forwarded a letter to the School Board's attorney requesting a formal administrative hearing regarding the matter of Mr. Denson's termination. On December 5, 2006, the Petition was heard by the School Board. At that time, Mr. Denson was suspended without pay pending the outcome of a hearing to be conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The School Board has a "zero" tolerance policy for threats of violence made by staff of the School District as set forth in Policy 2.71. The School Board has also adopted Policy 4.10, requiring employees of the School District to be in compliance with state and federal laws and with certain ethical standards. School District Administrative Regulation 2.61(1) provides: All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students. All employees are expected to meet the specific standards as described in the Employee Handbook(s), negotiated contracts, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as described by State Board of Education Rule, and all local State and federal laws.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Mr. Denson and dismissing Mr. Denson from his employment as a school bus operator with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employer based on the incident that occurred on November 3, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's employment with Petitioner began on September 30, 2002. He is a school bus driver, who works out of the south zone transportation compound. The position of the bus driver is an education support employee. Respondent is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). Since Respondent commenced working for Petitioner in September 2002, he received one probationary performance assessment and three annual performance assessments. Respondent always scored an "effective level of performance" in all areas targeted for assessment. The "comment" section for Petitioner's 2003-2004 performance assessment stated he was "an excellent employee." On his 2004-2005 assessment, the assessor wrote in the "comments" section that Respondent "performs daily route, requiring little supervision." Respondent's director recommended that Respondent's annual contract with Petitioner be renewed for each of the school years for 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. On September 13, 2005, Respondent was involved in a minor traffic accident while driving his school bus. There were no passengers on the bus at the time. After initially being unable to reach his supervisor on the radio, Respondent spoke with his supervisor and was instructed to complete his scheduled run. As a consequence of the accident, Respondent was required to submit to a drug and alcohol test. Both tests were negative. Pending the results for the test, however, Respondent was reassigned to office duty at Petitioner's south zone transportation department. Respondent was required to submit to a second drug and alcohol test on September 15, 2005. Respondent was working in the transportation office at the time. He had returned from lunch and was accused of smelling like he had consumed marijuana. He claimed that he simply had smoked a cigar during his lunch break. The drug and alcohol tests were negative. Respondent cooperated with the drug and alcohol testing in both instances. Notwithstanding, he believed he was being unfairly singled out and expressed this fact to Armando de Leon, the director of transportation for the south zone. On November 3, 2005, Respondent reported for duty around 5:00 a.m. He conducted his pre-trip check of the bus and discovered that the screws on the bracket of the passenger-side cross-over mirror, which assists the driver in observing students, who pass in front, and to the side of the bus, had come loose from the bus. Respondent did not record the problem on his pre-trip checklist, but instead drove the bus to the mechanic bay to have it repaired. Since September 2005, Respondent repeatedly had experienced a problem with the bracket of the passenger-side cross-over mirror becoming loose. It was repaired on several occasions both before and after November 3, 2005. Respondent showed the mechanic, David Deberardis, the problem with the mirror. Respondent and the mechanic both determined that it was safe to operate the bus in its existing condition, at least for Respondent's initial morning run. The mechanic instructed Respondent to return the bus to him after Respondent's first trip, and he would repair it at that time. Before commencing his run, Respondent repositioned the bracket of the mirror so it was temporarily operable. Only after his students disembarked at their destination at South Fort Myers High School did Respondent observe that the mirror bracket had again worked itself loose, and the mirror was hanging down from the bus. On November 3, 2005, in response to a citizen's anonymous complaint regarding Respondent's operating his bus erratically, Nena Garrett, the Petitioner's road safety supervisor, was assigned to surveil Respondent's bus. Garrett waited for Respondent at the bus ramp of South Fort Myers High School on November 3, 2005. She observed Respondent park his bus, get out of his bus, and speak to the driver of the bus in front of him. Garrett was convinced that the bus in front of her then intentionally blocked her access to the bus ramp. However, she was able to follow Respondent's bus and observed that Respondent activated the left turn signal, but made a right turn out of the school bus ramp and drove approximately two miles to the bus compound. When Respondent parked his bus at the south compound, Garret noticed that the front bumper of the bus on the passenger side was scraped and that the cross-over mirror bracket was detached from the holder. Garrett did not witness Respondent be involved in an accident; however, she saw the damaged mirror. She then reviewed Respondent's pre-trip inspection log, which indicated that everything on Respondent's bus was in working order. No damage to the bus was reported on the inspection log for that day. Bus operators are taught in training how to conduct a pre-trip inspection, and that if anything is wrong with the bus, it should be noted on the form. Respondent acknowledged that he attended such training and that he had received the Operator's, Assistant's and Monitor's Handbook, which includes requirement that bus operators are to conduct a pre-trip inspection daily. Respondent did not indicate on his pre-trip inspection log that there was any damage to the mirror or to the outside of the bus for the report submitted on November 3, 2005. Garrett did not observe anything of concern when Respondent exited his bus at the compound. However, Garrett confronted Respondent in the parking lot and asked how the cross-over mirror was broken. Respondent explained to Garrett that he had reported the loose mirror to the mechanic earlier that morning and that the mechanic told him to return to have it fixed after he completed the first run. Garrett conferred with the mechanic and confirmed that Respondent indeed had reported the problem with the mirror to him and that he told Respondent to proceed with his first run. The mechanic also confirmed that the condition of the mirror was not the result of an accident. Garrett testified that during the conversation with Respondent in the parking lot of the south compound, she observed the Respondent trip climbing the bus stairs. She also testified that his eyes were red and glassy and that he had pasty saliva coming from his mouth. Based on her experience as a teacher of drug and alcohol traffic education courses, she determined that something was wrong with Respondent and that he must be impaired. Garrett made the decision to contact the south zone director, Armando de Leon, to inform him that it appeared Respondent had been in an accident and that his appearance was suspicious. Garrett did not inform de Leon that she had talked to the mechanic. Following Garrett's phone call, de Leon arrived on the scene, and Garrett informed de Leon what she had witnessed. De Leon contacted Patrick Hayhurst, the district's safety inspector and deputy sheriff, to ascertain how he should proceed with searching the bus. Hayhurst advised de Leon to conduct the search. Respondent was advised that Garrett would be searching the bus. Respondent consented to the search and stated that he "had nothing to hide." Respondent claimed that he also requested union representation at that time, but his request was denied, and they proceeded with the search. During the search, a small grey briefcase was discovered on the floor resting against a partition behind the driver's seat. De Leon obtained Respondent's permission to search the briefcase. Among the contents of the briefcase, Garrett found a plastic card with scrape marks and a light brown, sticky powder stuck to it. She also found a Swiss army pocket knife. The pocket knife was a multi-tool devise with a knife blade estimated to be a two inch to two and a half inch blade, along with other tools. Respondent admitted to de Leon that the knife was his. He also admitted that he had placed the knife in the briefcase, but had forgotten it was there. In addition to the above items found in the briefcase, a transparent pen was also found with some type of residue on it. Respondent testified on direct examination that the pen was actually a mechanical pencil; however, on cross-examination he admitted that it was in fact a pen. Respondent had received the School Board's employee Handbook, which indicates the Petitioner's zero tolerance policy for weapons on school property. The policy reads as follows: Florida Statutes supports district procedures stating that persons shall not possess any firearm, electric weapon or electric devise, destructive devise or other weapon on the property of any school, any school bus stop, any facility having a school-sponsored activity, a district facility or any district property. Check with your site administrator for more specific procedures and for information regarding situations of this type at your worksite. Due to the observations made by Garrett and de Leon, it was determined that reasonable suspicion existed to administer a drug and alcohol screening of the Respondent; including, a test for Oxycontin. De Leon was aware that Respondent had been prescribed to take Oxycontin for pain-related injuries received in the past. De Leon testified that after the items were found on the bus, he contacted Hayhurst once again to determine what to do next. Hayhurst advised de Leon to contact the Lee County Sheriff's Office for the purpose of documenting what was discovered and to have the substance on the plastic card tested. De Leon then contacted the sheriff's office. Respondent was asked to come into de Leon's office. Once inside, Respondent was afforded the opportunity to contact a union representative. He spoke with Suzan Rudd, the executive director of SPALC, who told him to say as little as possible. A union representative did not arrive at de Leon's office prior to Respondent's departure. De Leon put the knife, pen barrel, and plastic card down on his office desk and went to advise Jack Shelton of what was taking place. When he returned to the office, the knife and plastic card were gone. Respondent had taken possession of both items. Upon request, Respondent returned the plastic card to de Leon, but retained the knife. De Leon then received a phone call advising him that a deputy had arrived. De Leon testified that at that moment Respondent's disposition changed, and he became extremely agitated and aggressive, and he advanced towards him. At this point, the testimony of the witnesses becomes very conflicted. However, the best evidence indicates that Respondent backed de Leon up against the wall near the corner of his office. Garrett stood up, and de Leon yelled for help. De Leon had his hands up above his head, and Respondent reached his hands toward de Leon's arms seeking to retrieve the plastic card. At that time, Shelton entered the room and, at Shelton's request, Respondent stepped away from de Leon. The testimony is inconsistent regarding the physical incident with de Leon. The testimony was that he stumbled into de Leon, shoved de Leon, fought with de Leon, or forcibly put his hands on de Leon. The testimony of Garrett, Shelton, and Giles corroborates de Leon's testimony that he had his hands in the air, and Respondent was forcibly making contact with de Leon's arms and/or hands against his will. Immediately following the incident with de Leon, Respondent announced that he was resigning his position. He was advised that there was a process for submitting a resignation, and that it cannot be done verbally. Once again, Respondent was advised that he was being asked to submit to a drug test, and he refused. Respondent admitted to observing the nurse, from the company used to conduct drug tests for Petitioner, on the compound prior to leaving the premises. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy John Kinsey testified that when he arrived at the scene, he proceeded to de Leon's office and observed a struggle going on. He obtained information about the incident from those present. He stated that he could have taken Respondent to jail for battery; however, he advised de Leon that his possession of the Respondent's plastic card could be considered petty theft. He testified that both parties thought better of pressing charges at that moment and moved on. Deputy Kinsey then conducted a swipe of the plastic card, which is less then a presumptive field test. The test would show for cocaine and any type of methamphetamine. The test was negative. Deputy Kinsey did not test for marijuana or Oxycontin. His visual observation of the plastic card was inconclusive as to illegal substances. Respondent looked medicated and disconnected from the world to Deputy Kinsey, like someone who had been taking pills. Based on his observation of Respondent, he advised Respondent not to drive home after leaving Petitioner's compound. Respondent ignored the deputy's advice and drove from the premises. Respondent withdrew his verbal resignation when he arrived home later that day, after he had an opportunity to confer with a union representative. Although both Garrett and de Leon overreacted to the incident, de Leon was authorized to require Respondent to take a drug and alcohol test, to test the plastic card for drug residue, and to consider the pocket knife a weapon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent without pay from his position as a bus operator with the Lee County School District from March 14, 2006, until the end of the 2005-2006 school year. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that should the School Board follow this recommendation to suspend Respondent rather than terminate him, it is within the sole discretion of the superintendent of the district to offer Respondent a new contract for the school year 2006-2007. See Cox v. School Board of Osceola County, 669 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Warren Hayward, Sr., should be disciplined as an employee of the School Board?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Warren Hayward, Sr., began employment as a school bus driver with the School Board sometime in either 1980 or 1981. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hayward was a bus driver for the School Board. At the time that Mr. Hayward began his employment as a bus driver with the School Board, he was given a copy of the School Bus Driver's Handbook by Mr. David Conrad Meyer, the Supervisor Director of Transportation of the School Board. Mr. Meyer was Mr. Hayward's immediate supervisor. Mr. Meyer also Supervised the other seven school bus drivers who worked for the School Board. Mr. Meyer was responsible for evaluating the eight school bus drivers and insuring their compliance with the law concerning the operation of school buses. Mr. Meyer had driven a school bus from 1972 until 1979 and has been Director of Transportation since 1979. On the morning of December 4, 1985, Mr. Hayward stopped at one of the regular stops on his route along Bay City Road in Apalachicola, Franklin County, Florida. There was a dirt turn around road off of Bay City Road which Mr. Hayward drove the bus around and up to the pavement of Bay City Road where he stopped the bus to pick up students. After stopping the bus that morning, Allen Dempsey, Lloyd Alford and William Thomas Jenkins, who were all friends, entered the bus with a few other students. Allen and Lloyd were in the ninth grade and Billy was in the seventh grade at the time of the incident. They all attended Apalachicola High School. The last three students to enter the bus were Allen, followed by Lloyd and then Billy. Students had been directed in the past that the first five seats of the bus were to be used only by elementary school students. On occasion, other students were required to sit in the first five seats as a disciplinary precaution. Other than those exceptions, the older students, including Allen, Lloyd and Billy had been instructed not to sit in the first five seats of the bus. Upon entering the bus on December 4, 1985, Allen, Lloyd and Billy proceeded to the middle to rear portion of the bus. Before Allen or Billy could get into a seat, Mr. Hayward began moving the bus. Mr. Hayward started the bus without warning and without insuring that all of the students were in their seats. When the bus first moved it jerked. When the bus began to move, Billy fell backwards into the seat and hit his head against the inside of the outer wall on the side of the bus. Lloyd, who had taken the seat across the aisle from Billy and had witnessed Billy fall, asked him if he was okay. Billy said that he was a little dizzy. As a result of the fall, Billy eventually had a knot on the back of his head. Billy did not suffer an permanent injuries, however. After Billy told Lloyd that he was little dizzy, Lloyd stood up and yelled toward Mr. Hayward that "you are suppose to wait until we are seated before taking off--you made Billy fall and hurt himself" or words to that effect. In response to Lloyd's comment, Mr. Hayward stopped the bus, got up out of his seat and stood in the aisle next to his seat. Mr. Hayward replied, in effect, that "you could have used one of the first five seats; I only have to wait until you are past the first five seats." Mr. Hayward then sat down and proceeded on his route. At no time on December 4, 1985, did Mr. Hayward inquire about Billy's fall or go back to where Billy was seated to check on him. Nor did Mr. Hayward report the incident to Mr. Meyer or any other person. At the time of the incident there were approximately fifteen students on the bus. None of the students, including Billy, reported the incident of December 4, 1985, to anyone at school that day. On the evening of December 4, 1985, Billy reported the incident to his Mother when he arrived home. After inspecting the knot which had appeared on Billy's head, Billy's parents, Lloyd and Billy went to the home of the principal of Apalachicola High School, Mr. Fox, and reported the incident. Mr. Fox sent the Jenkins family and Lloyd to see Ms. Gloria Tucker, the Franklin County Superintendent of Schools. Ms. Tucker met with them and observed the knot on the back of Billy's head. Ms. Tucker told Billy's parents that, if they wished to make a complaint, they would have to do so in writing the next morning. She also told them that she would contact Mr. Meyer and inform him that they wanted to make a complaint. After the Jenkins family and Lloyd departed, Ms. Tucker called Mr. Meyer and reported the incident to him. Mr. Meyer had not been told of the incident until this time. She directed Mr. Meyer to take the statements of the Jenkins family and the other students and to look into the matter. On the morning of December 5, 1985, Mr. Fox asked Allen, Lloyd, Billy and Matthew Cramer to write a statement describing the incident of the day before. Matthew Cramer was a student who was already on the bus on December 4, 1985, when Billy entered the bus. Matthew witnessed the incident of December 4, 1985. All of the students and Billy's parents filed statements. Because the statements were given on December 5, 1985 all of the students, except Billy, dated their reports as of that date. Billy dated his statement December 4, 1985, the date of the incident as opposed to the date he made the statement. At some point shortly after the incident, Billy was seen by a physician and his head was x-rayed. Mr. Meyer sent a letter dated December 9, 1985, to Mr. Hayward informing him that a complaint concerning the December 4, 1985, incident had been received and that it would be reported to the School Board at the regularly scheduled meeting on December 11, 1985. A copy of the written statements made by the students and Billy's parents was attached to the letter. Mr. Hayward, who received the letter and statements, was also told that he could respond if he wished. No response to this letter or the complaint was made by Mr. Hayward at that time. Billy's parents and other parents attended the School Board meeting on December 11, 1985. Because of concerns expressed by the parents for the safety of students riding Mr. Hayward's bus and concern for Mr. Hayward's safety, Ms. Tucker directed Mr. Meyer to ride with Mr. Hayward on his bus route. By letter dated December 12, 1985, Ms. Tucker informed Mr. Hayward that the Board had authorized her to commission an investigation concerning the incident of December 4, 1985, and other alleged incidents, and that J. Patrick Floyd, Esquire, Ms. Tucker's attorney, would conduct the investigation. Ms. Tucker also informed Mr. Hayward that the School Board had Suspended him with pay until the January, 1986, meeting of the School Board. Mr. Floyd conducted an investigation of the December 4, 1985, incident and other incidents, and submitted a written report to Ms. Tucker before the January 16, 1986, School Board meeting. At no time, however, did Mr. Floyd talk to Mr. Hayward. Ms. Tucker also discussed the report with Mr. Floyd. Based upon Mr. Floyd's report and based upon Ms. Tucker's understanding of other incidents involving Mr. Hayward's operation of his bus, Ms. Tucker recommended to the School Board that Mr. Hayward be terminated as an employee. Mr. Floyd's report was presented to the School Board at its January 16, 1986, meeting. A copy of the report was also provided to Mr. Hayward. By letter dated January 17, 1986, counsel for the School Board informed Mr. Hayward and his counsel that Mr. Floyd's report and Ms. Tucker's recommendation had been presented to the School Board meeting of January 16, 1986, and that the School Board would consider the report and recommendation at its February 4, 1986, meeting. The letter indicated that Mr. Hayward could attend the meeting to discuss the report and to present witnesses and other evidence. By letter dated January 30, 1986, Mr. Hayward responded to the School Board through his counsel. In a memorandum dated February 3, 1986, Ms. Tucker informed the School Board that she could not attend the School Board meeting of February 4, 1986, and restated her recommendation that Mr. Hayward's employment be terminated. At its February 4, 1986, meeting, the School Board decided to terminate Mr. Hayward as an employee of the School Board. This decision was reached after allowing counsel for Mr. Hayward to respond to the allegations concerning Mr. Hayward's operation of his school bus. In a letter dated February 13, 1986, counsel for the School Board informed Mr. Hayward and his counsel that Mr. Hayward had been terminated from employment by the School Board and informed them of Mr. Hayward's right to request an administrative hearing to contest the decision. In a letter dated February 28, 1986, Mr. Hayward requested an administrative hearing to contest his termination from employment by the School Board. Mr. Hayward had started his bus in motion before all students on the bus were seated on other occasions before the December 4, 1985, incident. Several other complaints concerning Mr. Hayward's operation of his bus had been received in writing by Mr. Meyer prior to the December 4, 1985, incident. Mr. Meyer only investigated reports if the complaining party made a written report of the incident. No written complaints concerning the operation of a bus have been received by Mr. Meyer concerning any other driver. Two written complaints have been received about another driver but those complaints did not concern the safe operation of a school bus. One complaint received by Mr. Meyer was from Ms. Donna Ward, a secretary at Chapman Elementary School. The complaint concerned an incident witnessed by Ms. Ward on May 26, 1981. Ms. Ward heard persistent horn blowing outside the school and went outside of the front of the school to investigate. It was raining and the circular drive used to pick up children by parents and the school bus drivers was full of waiting cars and buses. Mr. Hayward's bus was out on the street near the entrance of the driveway and Mr. Hayward was blowing the horn. The cars in front of him could not move, however. Nor was the area exclusively for use by the school buses. Mr. Hayward had been told to arrive early to avoid difficulty getting his bus to the pickup point within the driveway. He had also been told that the driveway at the school was available for use by parents and not just school buses. After blowing the horn for approximately four to five minutes, Mr. Hayward drove the bus to the exit of the driveway. Mr. Hayward then began to back the bus into the driveway in front of another bus parked at the curb. As he did so, students began exiting the building. Ms. Ward grabbed one student who ran behind Mr. Hayward's backing bus and pulled him back onto the sidewalk. No one was behind the bus giving Mr. Hayward directions as he backed the bus into a school grounds area congested with students and vehicles. Mr. Hayward's actions in backing the bus were not safe. At some point along Mr. Hayward's bus route along Bluff Road, the road crosses a railroad track. Mr. Hayward must cross the tracks once on his way out Bluff Road, turn around after picking up students and cross the tracks again on his way back. On one occasion, Mr. Hayward failed to stop at the crossing on his way out Bluff Road even though the warning lights were flashing. On his way back along Bluff Road, Mr. Hayward did stop the bus but failed to open the doors of the bus before crossing the tracks. On another occasion, Mr. Hayward slowed the bus at the railroad crossing but did not stop until he was already on or very near the tracks and observed a crane moving on the tracks. Mr. Hayward then slammed on the brakes and backed the bus up. The sudden stop of the bus caused an elementary student to hit and bloody her nose. The warning lights on Bluff Road which Mr. Hayward had to cross malfunctioned on a number of occasions. On one occasion, the light malfunctioned while Mr. Meyer was riding with Mr. Hayward. Mr. Hayward followed safe procedures on this occasion. Although the lights did malfunction on occasion, they also worked properly on other occasions. Mr. Hayward has received two driving citations and accumulated six points on his driving record. These citations were associated with his driving of his personal automobile and not a school bus. On May 4, 1983, Mr. Hayward was cited for faulty brakes and received two points. On this occasion, Mr. Hayward was unable to stop his car because his brakes failed. He drove into the wall of a store. Mr. Hayward had the brakes repaired approximately two weeks before this incident. On June 15, 1984, Mr. Hayward was cited for speeding and received four points. None of the other seven school bus drivers of the School Board have received driving citations during the past seven years. Except for a few students in Carrabelle, no black students ride the school bus in Franklin County. This is because, although black students make up approximately thirty-five percent of the student population, they all live within one mile of their schools and only students who live more than one mile from their schools are provided bus transportation. Therefore, the route driven by Mr. Hayward included stops for only white students. Mr. Hayward was the only black bus driver ever employed by the School Board. Mr. Hayward was the President of the N.A.A.C.P. for Franklin County during 1984, and had been active in community affairs. Among the activities Mr. Hayward was involved in were the adoption of single-member districts for the School Board. The School Board ultimately approved single-member districting for Franklin County. None of the members of the School Board who took part in the decision to terminate Mr. Hayward's employment with the School Board were elected to the School Board after single-member districting was adopted. When Mr. Hayward first applied for his position with the School Board, he was told by Mr. Meyer that there was no vacancy. Mr. Hayward contacted the Franklin County Superintendent of Schools, Ms. Tucker, about what Mr. Meyer told him. After Ms. Tucker spoke with Mr. Meyer, Mr. Meyer gave Mr. Hayward an application and ultimately was hired as a bus driver. On May 3, 1985, a meeting was held between Mr. Hayward, Ms. Tucker, Mr. Fox, Ms. Rose McCoy, the Principal of Chapman Elementary School and two others. Ms. Tucker scheduled the meeting because of problems voiced by Mr. Hayward concerning the treatment of discipline referrals by the Principals and complaints concerning Mr. Hayward's treatment of students and the two Principals. Mr. Hayward identified four students as discipline problems during this meeting. None of the students involved in the December 4, 1985, incident were named as problem students by Mr. Hayward. Mr. Fox agreed to administer corporal punishment to one of the students named by Mr. Hayward at the meeting and offered to allow Mr. Hayward to witness the punishment. Mr. Hayward declined. There is a relationship between a school bus driver's ability to manage students and the safe operation of a school bus. A driver must be able to manage students. The most important consideration for a school bus driver is the safety and health of the driver's student passengers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a Final Order terminating Mr. Hayward's employment as a school bus driver for the School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0970 The parties have 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 See 1. The first sentence is a summary of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. See 42 and 45. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding. The number of black drivers "currently" employed is not relevant to this proceeding. 3-4 3. 3, 33 and 41. The fourth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Summary of testimony and not proposed findings of fact. See 4, 9, 16 and 19. The weight of the evidence proved that the injury took place on December 4, 1985. 14. The first sentence is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 15-17 and 20. 10-11 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5. Matthew Cramer was not good friends with the other three individuals. Not Supported by the weight of the evidence. See 35-37. 14-17 Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43. The evidence failed to prove that a consent decree was entered as a result of Mr. Hayward's effort. 44. The evidence failed to prove, however, that the fact contained in the first sentence had any effect on the action taken by the School Board against Mr. Hayward. The last sentence is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The second sentence is a conclusion of law. 22-25 These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. Summary of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. See 34. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Summary of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. The first paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last paragraph is irrelevant. Hereby accepted. 29 18. Irrelevant. Conclusion of law. 32-33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1, 4-5 and 13. The date of the incident was December 4, 1985 and not December 4 or 5, 1985. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2 6. 3 5 and 7-8. 4 8 and 9. The evidence failed to prove that medical attention was required. 5 10 and 11. 6 12. 7 7. 8 32. 9 7. 10 15-17. 11 18 and 20. 12 22 and 23. 13 23 and 25. 14 35 and 36. 15 46. 16 33. Mr. Meyer received two complaints about one other driver and not complaints about two other drivers. 17 3, 47 and 48. 18 2. 33, 38 and 40. The last sentence is true but not relevant because the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Hayward was placed on disciplinary probation. The next to the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 34. The first paragraph was not supported by the weight of the evidence. The evidence concerning this paragraph was hearsay. The fourth paragraph is irrelevant. 24 and 28. The last sentence is not relevant. 22 28 and 29. 23 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Van P. Russell, Esquire Watkins and Russell 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Robert Woolfork, Esquire The Murphy House 317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gloria Tucker, Superintendent Franklin County School Board 155 Avenue E Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Martin B. Schapp Administrator 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation of Fact, the parties agreed, and it is found, that: Respondent, Janet Shrader, has been employed by the School Board of SARASOTA County for approximately seven years as a school bus aide. The job responsibilities of a school bus aide include assisting the bus driver in dealing with discipline problems and doing everything possible for the comfort of the students. School bus aides are required to have good working relationships with drivers, teachers and parents. The school bus aide is supervised by the route coordinator. Bus aides are only assigned to buses which transport students participating in the exceptional student education program. The Board provides training courses for bus drivers and bus aides by a behavior specialist. This program is designed to assist employees in acquiring skills for disciplining students in an appropriate manner. This program is titled ACT, (Aggression Control Techniques), and was developed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Janet Shrader attended the training programs for ACT conducted by behavior specialist, Linda Hall. On the morning of October 19, 1989, Janet Shrader lost her temper with Roy Sanders, a Board employee employed at the Student Center. In the course of the ensuing intercourse, she tweaked his nose with her hand, dislodging his eyeglasses, and yelled at him to, "Fuck Off, Asshole." On the afternoon of October 19, 1990, the bus on which she was riding as an aide had to return to the school. Respondent and Tony Sanders, a child classified as Severely Emotionally Disturbed, and the son of the Roy Sanders previously mentioned above, got off the bus. Ms. Shrader went with Tony to speak with Mr. Marks, the school psychologist. At this point, Ms. Cocanower, a teacher, and an aide, Ms. Rizzo, got on the bus to attempt to calm down the students who appeared to be somewhat upset. Shortly thereafter, Respondent returned with Tony and boarded the bus. She began yelling and when Ms. Cocanower heard this, she got on the bus and observed Respondent yelling at Tony who, by then, was even more upset. He was standing up saying, "I didn't do it." He was not trying to harm anyone. Ms. Cocanower attempted to take Tony's wrist but was unable to do so because Respondent grabbed the boy by the elbow from behind in a modified ACT grip and pushed him forward, at the same time yelling at Ms. Cocanower to get off the bus. At this point, Mr. Marks boarded the bus and Ms. Cocanower got off. In the opinion of Ms. Cocanower, Respondent's use of the ACT procedure was not consistent with the training received and was improper, especially when accompanied by the yelling Respondent was doing at the time. It is so found. Subsequent inquiry revealed that the incident came about when Tony was assaulted by `another child, Bobby Resnick and was responding to the attack on him. He `had not initiated the incident. Respondent did not see Resnik's kick but only Tony's response. As Respondent pushed Tony down the aisle toward the bus entrance, in the course of resisting her efforts to put him off the bus, he apparently kicked her. Whether this was by accident or on purpose is unknown. Respondent, in response, kicked back at him as he exited the bus. Her attempt to kick Tony did not connect. Had it done so, according to Detective Bank, the school resource officer who saw the incident, he would have arrested her. As it was, in his opinion, Ms. Shrader was completely out of control. She was yelling and screaming at the children and was verbally abusive. He does not recall her exact words, and refers more to the inappropriate tone of voice she was utilizing with emotionally disturbed children. There was, according to Ms. Tucker, another unusual incident relating to Respondent that same day, but earlier, in the morning. Ms. Tucker had written a referral slip on Tony Sanders to which Respondent wanted to place an addendum to the effect that Tony had been good that day, except for the referral incident. While on the bus, in front of the children, Respondent began yelling at Ms. Tucker about that situation and walked off the bus leaving Ms. Tucker alone with the children. That upset Tony. As a result of this incident, two meetings were held between Board officials and Ms. Shrader. The first was held on November 1, 1989. It was called by Vincent Laurini, Board Director of Transportation, and attended by the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and the union representative, as well as Respondent. The second was held on November 2, 1989,after Respondent had been given an opportunity to review witness statements regarding the incident. Ms. Shrader admitted that the statements were "pretty accurate" and in a conversation with Ms. Tucker, on the bus on October l9, 1989, after the incident took place, she commented to the effect that at least if they "got" her, she wouldn't have to ride with the kids for a year. As a result of this incident, Mr. Laurini subsequently recommended Ms. S~rader be terminated for her conduct on October 19, 1989 and this action was subsequently recommended to the Superintendent. Ms. Shrader was thereafter initially suspended with by Dr. Fowler, but on November 21, 1989, the Board suspended her without pay pending termination. There is no contest by Respondent regarding the fact that the incident took place or that it happened as described. Whereas Ms. Tucker, Ms. Cocanower, Ms. Rizzo, and Detective Bang all opined that her conduct was a severe overreaction which was inconsistent with the best interests of not only Tony but all of the exceptional children dn the bus, it may have been an isolated incident. This was the first year Ms. Tucker had been riding with Respondent. A written statement from another driver who worked with Respondent for three years, and who retired from bus driving in 1988, indicates she was always very good with the children, had a good rapport with the parents and teachers, and contributed greatly to making his/her job easier. On the other hand, there is some evidence of aberrant behavior on the part of the Respondent in early March,1989 which resulted in her being evaluated by a psychiatrist at Mental Health Associates in Sarasota. The physician's report, rendered on April 4, 1989, indicated that Respondent had had psychiatric contact as early as 1966 when she was 19 and has been under continuing psychiatric care, intermittently, since that time. Her psychiatric history reflects a diagnosis of a bipolar illness, (manic-depressive), and a history of alcohol abuse. Based on this evaluation by Respondent's own psychiatrist, she was also referred to the Suncoast Mental Health Center for evaluation. In his report dated June 1, 1989, Dr. Fosser confirmed the prior diagnoses, indicating both conditions were in remission, and concluding she was ready to restart work. Dr. Fosser related he could not see, at that time, that her psychiatric symptoms would endanger the safety of the children under her custody. This opinion appears not to have been borne out by the ensuing circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing bindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the $chool Board of SARASOTA County enter a Final Order confirming its action suspending her without pay effective November 12, 1989, and dismissing her from employment with the Board. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 6th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria D. Korn, Esquire Kunkel & Miller 290 Cocoanut Avenue SARASOTA, Florida 34236 Herbert W. AbeIl, Esquire 3224 Markridge Rd. SARASOTA, Florida 34231 Janet Shrader 22 Goodrich Street SARASOTA, Florida 34236 Dr. Charles W. Fowler Superintendent of Schools Sarasota County 2418 Hatton Street Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Christopher O'Brien and suspend him for five days without pay. Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Angelo DiPaolo and suspend him for three days without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Christopher O'Brien was employed by Petitioner Hernando County School Board as a school bus driver. Mr. O'Brien was first hired by Petitioner as a school bus driver in 2001. Prior to the events of this case, he had never been disciplined by his employer, and he had received a number of commendations. At all times material, Angelo DiPaolo was employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant. Mr. DiPaolo was first employed and trained by Petitioner as a school bus driver for about one year, but he had been employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant for the last six years preceding the incident in this case. Respondents are members of the Hernando United School Workers Union (HUSW). For the 2007-2008, school year, both men were assigned by the School Board's Transportation Department to Bus 473, Route 22. During that school year, the bus carried between 50 and 60 children, ages kindergarten through eighth grade, to and from J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Student A.R. was one of these students. On October 5, 2007, A.R. was a three-year-old, female, pre-kindergarten, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student. She was a special needs child, whose 2007-2008, Individualized Education Plan (IEP) called for her to have adult supervision while riding the bus. The School Board had implemented A.R.'s IEP for the 2007-2008, school year by placing Mr. DiPaolo on Mr. O'Brien's bus. Steve Daniels, Petitioner's ESE Driver Coordinator Specialist, provided Mr. DiPaolo with written confirmation of his assignment, which included information on A.R.'s grade level, bus stop, and need for a special seat restraint. Mr. DiPaolo first met A.R. at the beginning of the 2007-2008, school year. Mr. DiPaolo's assigned first and primary responsibility was the safety of A.R., which included buckling her into her child safety seat, but his second and subordinate responsibility was to maintain order on the bus and manage the safety of the other 50-60 children. Mr. O'Brien had met A.R. during the second semester of the 2006-2007, school year, when she was initially placed on his school bus route. During that school year, A.R. had ridden the bus driven by Mr. O'Brien without having a school bus attendant specifically devoted to her safety and exceptionalities. During that school year, Mr. O'Brien had been instrumental in getting a particular type of safety seat for A.R. to ride in, due to her small size. This type of seat is called "a C. E. White" or "CEW" child's safety seat, and has an integrated five-point harness. During the 2006-2007, school year, Mr. O'Brien's bus had no bus attendant. Therefore, during that period of time, he had ultimate responsibility for all the children on his bus, including A.R. During the 2006-2007, school year, A.R. was sometimes buckled into her bus safety seat by older siblings who rode the same bus, but Mr. O'Brien had a good rapport with A.R. and often also helped buckle her into her seat. To do so, he had to leave the bus driver's compartment of the bus. During the 2007-2008, school year, A.R. and one sister, R.R., who was then approximately nine years old, continued to ride Mr. O'Brien's bus. Mr. O'Brien was advised at the start of the 2007-2008, school year that A.R. would be riding with the adult supervision of Mr. DiPaolo. Mr. O'Brien was not made privy to the reasons why the decision had been made to require a bus attendant specifically for A.R., but he understood he was supposed to comply with this requirement, regardless of the reason. There also was testimony that any three-year-old attending kindergarten with a special bus attendant would be an ESE student. In assessing the relative credibility and weighing the testimony of all the witnesses, as well as hearing the comments made by R.R. on the videotape of the October 5, 2007, incident, it is found that A.R. was not a usually compliant and accepting bus passenger, but was frequently what any parent would recognize as difficult or oppositional. (See Finding of Fact 23.) Indeed, during the 2007-2008, school year prior to October 5, 2007, Mr. DiPaolo had twice sought direction from Mr. Daniels, who had told him to do the best he could with A.R., but if Mr. DiPaolo's "best" did not work out, something else might have to be done about A.R. A.R.'s father usually brought her to the bus stop. On the morning of October 5, 2007, a neighbor brought the two siblings to the bus stop. A.R. was already upset when boarding began. On October 5, 2007, A.R. did not want to get on the bus. Mr. DiPaolo had to go down to the first step of the bus to get A.R. from the neighbor who was supervising the sisters at the bus stop. Once A.R. made it to the top step of the bus entrance, she still did not want to move. Mr. DiPaolo had to lift her up and place her in her C.E. White seat, which was strapped-into the window-side of the first row seat, immediately inside the door on the side of the bus opposite the driver's side. Once there, A.R. deliberately slumped off the car seat onto the floor of the bus. When lifted up again, A.R. repeated the behavior. This "battle of wills" between the three-year-old and the bus attendant continued for a little while. Fairly quickly, however, Mr. DiPaolo retired from the field of battle to speak to some students in the back of the bus. At this point, A.R. was either sliding herself onto the floor or was on the floor between the first row of seats and the stairwell barricade. Despite some testimony to the effect that the older students in the back of the bus were rowdy and needed to be settled down, the video tape does not corroborate that "take" on the chain of events. While it might have been good strategy for Mr. DiPaolo to let A.R. cool off a little before again trying to buckle her into her seat, there does not appear to have been any pressing reason for Mr. DiPaolo to absent himself from her vicinity to address issues in the back of the bus. Moreover, A.R. was his first and prime responsibility, and he abandoned that responsibility by saying to A.R.'s sister, R.R., who was still standing and not in her own seat, that she should try to get A.R. buckled in, and he did not alert Mr. O'Brien that A.R. was not yet buckled-in. Mr. DiPaolo's superior, Mr. Daniels, would have sanctioned Mr. DiPaolo's enlisting the aid of the older sibling if Mr. DiPaolo also had not simply abandoned the situation and walked to the back of the bus. Mr. DiPaolo also could have, and did not, attempt to enlist the aid of the adult neighbor who had delivered A.R. to the bus stop, or he could have returned A.R. back to that adult neighbor and suggested the neighbor take A.R. to school separately, both of which were options his superiors testified they would have sanctioned. He could also have requested that Mr. O'Brien radio the dispatcher for help. He chose none of these options. As Mr. DiPaolo gave instructions to A.R.'s sister and walked to the back of the bus, Mr. O'Brien, not realizing that A.R. was not secured into her seat, pulled the bus away from the stop. Although Mr. O'Brien testified to several reasons that he believed A.R. was secured in her seat before he pulled the bus away from its stop, Mr. DiPaolo clearly had not orally advised him that she was buckled-in, and Mr. O'Brien did not, in fact, make sure that A.R. was secure before he pulled the bus into four-lane traffic. Moreover, the sister, R.R., was up and down while all this was going on. She was not always in her seat as the bus was moving, either. R.R. was not able to secure A.R. in her seat, so she approached the driver's compartment and stated to Mr. O'Brien that they were going to have to do things "the hard way." R.R.'s choice of words suggests that R.R. and Mr. O'Brien had previously had to buckle A.R. into her car seat by sheer force. Approximately 25 seconds after he started the bus, during which time the bus entered the flow of four lanes of traffic and proceeded through an intersection, Mr. O'Brien pulled the bus over to the side of the road and stopped. During the whole of this period, A.R. was not in her seat or buckled- in. When Mr. O'Brien pulled over, he put on the emergency brake and put the transmission in neutral. He intentionally left the bus engine running, because the doors on that type of bus are controlled by air pressure. Once the engine is turned off, the doors will open with just the touch of a hand from either inside or outside the door. For safety reasons, he wanted the door to remain secure. Under the circumstances, pulling over the bus was probably a wise move, but Mr. O'Brien went further. He could have summoned Mr. DiPaolo to come back and do his job as A.R.'s bus attendant, and he could have called dispatch to alert the administration to a problem requiring their help, but instead, Mr. O'Brien left the driver's compartment to check on A.R. When Mr. O'Brien reached her, A.R. was not in her seat. He lifted her up from the floor of the bus and attempted to buckle her into her seat. At first, Mr. O'Brien was not successful getting A.R. into her seat and asked her if she knew she was about to get "a spanking." Mr. O'Brien admitted to threatening to spank A.R. to "snap her out of it," and to emphasize the importance of complying with his demands, even though he knew that "corporal punishment" was against Petitioner's policies. His voice was firm in making the statement and more matter-of-fact than threatening. However, his threat was loud enough to be heard over the general commotion on the bus, the idling engine, and the sound of traffic. R.R. and at least a few nearby children must have heard the threat. When A.R. continued to physically resist Mr. O'Brien's efforts to get her into her seat, he administered a single, swift slap to her right buttocks/thigh area. A.R. did not cry out specifically at that point, although later she began to cry. After spanking A.R., Mr. O'Brien was able, unassisted, to wrestle her into her seat and buckle her in. At some point in Mr. O'Brien's struggle, Mr. DiPaolo returned and stood in the aisle, level with the back of A.R.'s seat, observing Mr. O'Brien interacting with A.R. and A.R. crying. The "driver's compartment" on Mr. O'Brien's bus does not show up well in the video and there was no testimony concerning how it is configured. However, it does not appear to be separated from the students' seats by a door or partition. The diagrams in the Operations Handbook show clear access to the driver's seat and controls from the student seats on the driver's side immediately behind the driver's seat, if the driver is not in his seat, regardless of whether anyone is blocking the aisle. During the entire period of time Mr. O'Brien was dealing with A.R., he had his back turned towards the driver's seat and controls, which he had left unattended. During this entire period of time, the bus engine continued running and the doors remained closed. However, Mr. O'Brien's bus has just a knob for an emergency brake and anyone could have hit the knob so that the bus would begin rolling forward. After securing A.R. and being sure R.R. also was safely seated, Mr. O'Brien returned to the driver's compartment and drove the bus to school. A.R.'s screaming, crying, and fussing seems to have escalated after Mr. O'Brien resumed the driver's seat, when Mr. DiPaolo said something to A.R. about his not being willing to sit with her. However, Mr. DiPaolo eventually sat next to A.R. and interacted with A.R. to keep her amused, and apparently happy, until the bus stopped again and the passengers debarked at J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Mr. O'Brien described the incident to A.R.'s classroom teacher when he delivered A.R. into her care at the school on October 5, 2007. He did not report it to Petitioner's Transportation Department, because it was, in his mind, a minor bit of misbehavior by a student. Mr. DiPaolo also made no report. The undersigned is not persuaded that either Mr. O'Brien or Mr. DiPaolo tried to keep the incident secret. One of Petitioner's own training manuals provides: Minor incidents of misbehavior such as getting out of the seat, standing, or speaking loudly are usually better handled on the bus. If every incident of misbehavior is reported to the principal, the operator will lose credibility. However, on the following Monday morning, A.R.'s mother boarded Mr. O'Brien's bus and made a scene, accusing Mr. O'Brien of spanking A.R. on her bottom. The mother then proceeded to Petitioner's administrative offices, where she lodged a complaint, and finally went on to the Sheriff's Office to do the same. Ultimately, because they are required to do so when there is an accusation of corporal punishment, Petitioner's administration notified the Department of Children and Family Services of the mother's allegations. After receiving the complaint, Linda Smith, Petitioner's Director of Transportation, requested a copy of the October 5, 2007, surveillance video from the front of Bus 473. That surveillance film was admitted in evidence and has been heavily relied-upon in this Recommended Order. The surveillance film from the back of the bus was not offered or admitted. Ms. Smith, and Ms. Rucell Nesmith, Petitioner's Operator Trainer/Safety Coordinator for Transportation, have each been involved in school bus transportation for over 30 years and both have served as drivers and as transportation administrators. They testified that Mr. O'Brien's conduct on October 5, 2007, violated Petitioner's policy on two basic levels: he left the driver's compartment while the bus was still running and still loaded with students, and he administered corporal punishment to a student. While bus attendants and drivers have some discretion in handling disruptive students or students like A.R., who are not following directions, they are not supposed to permit, or cause, a bus to leave a stop until every student is properly secured, and they are forbidden to use corporal punishment. Bus drivers/operators receive training, including training on Petitioner's Operations Handbook as well as training on the State-approved driver curriculum. Mr. O'Brien was certified as having completed the bus driver training on July 20, 2001. Mr. O'Brien attended annual in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In-service trainings include, among other things, any updates to the Operations Handbook. General statements were also made during in-service trainings about not touching students. Mr. DiPaolo received his initial training as a bus driver from Ms. Nesmith and a copy of the Operations Handbook in 2001, when he first was hired by Petitioner. Mr. DiPaolo, and all bus attendants, receive initial training as bus attendants, including a review of Petitioner's Operations Handbook. Mr. DiPaolo also received in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In-service training included any updates to the Operations Handbook. Ms. Smith recommended discipline for Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo. She recommended a five-day suspension for Mr. O'Brien and a three-day suspension for Mr. DiPaolo. Petitioner scheduled a pre-disciplinary meeting concerning the incident for October 17, 2007. The meeting was postponed because Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo had obtained legal counsel. The meeting was eventually rescheduled for November 2007. Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo attended that meeting with their respective legal counsel, and it resulted in the November 7, 2007, charges addressed below and in the Conclusions of Law. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, Petitioner's Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. O'Brien, reprimanding him and issuing a five-day suspension without pay for leaving the driver's compartment; leaving the bus running while attending to A.R.; orally threatening to spank a student while attempting to put her into her seat; swatting the student on her posterior; and failing to immediately report to the Transportation Department the incident as a student safety issue. Mr. O'Brien was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (10)- On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board; Policy 6.301, Ethics: Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety; and (3) (e) not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and provisions in Petitioner's 2007 Staff Handbook prohibiting touching students except to protect their health, safety and/or welfare. Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, the Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. DiPaolo, reprimanding him and issuing a three-day suspension without pay, for failing to place a student assigned specifically to him for supervision and assistance in her seat; walking to the back of the bus while the bus driver had to secure the student in her seat; and failing to immediately report the incident to the Transportation Department as a student safety issue. Mr. DiPaolo was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group II, Section (13), Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties; Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (4), Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work; and Policy 6.301: Ethics, Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Again, Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 37, states, in pertinent part: Bus Aides 5. Drivers are to remain in the driver's compartment. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 59-Y, states, in pertinent part: Responsibilities of a School Bus Aide To load and unload students and assist driver as needed. * * * 3. To ensure that all students are secured and when appropriate, secure restraining devices, i.e. seat belts, safety vest, infant seats, and toddler seats. * * * 6. To recognize individual student capabilities and exceptionalities while maintaining order on the bus and administer to their individual needs as required. At page 59-D, the Operations Handbook provides, in pertinent part: Operating Procedure No. 27, Responsibilities of the School Bus Driver Related to Board of Education Rules 6A-3 25. To report immediately to the director or supervisor of transportation, school principal or other designated officials: a. Misconduct on the part of any student while on bus or under the driver's immediate supervision, The Department of Education Bureau of Professional Practices Services' handout, provided during training of bus drivers, provides, in pertinent part: INTERACTION WITH STUDENTS: Keep hands and other parts of your body to yourself. TIPS FOR STAFF WITH AGGRESSIVE STUDENTS: DON'TS: Do not physically handle the student. Do not react aggressively in return. * * * 5. Do not create punitive consequences to "get even" with the student. Department of Education Recommendation: Discipline The bus driver has no authority to slap, spank or abuse any child. By School Board policy, Petitioner has made the standards for educators applicable to even its non-educational personnel, such as bus attendants and bus drivers. Policy 6.301 concerns employee ethics and provides in pertinent part: (2) All employees shall familiarize themselves with the 'Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida,' located in the State Board of Education Rules. All employees shall abide by the Code at all times and shall be held to the standards of the Code in all matters related to their employment with the Hernando County School Board. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, which is provided to Petitioner's employees with their copy of Petitioner's Policy 6.301, provides in pertinent part: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * e. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner's Policy 6.301 (3), reads: The School Board of Hernando County supports strong internal control in its procedures and practices. All incidents of suspected improprieties should be reported using the Board approved Compliant [sic] Policy. Petitioner's 2007-2008 Staff Handbook provides, in pertinent part: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety, and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. School Board Policy 6.37 -- Group (II) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP II OFFENSES (13) Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. School Board Policy 6.37 - Group (III) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP III OFFENSES (4) Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work. (10) On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board. The parties stipulated that this case does not present a situation of progressive discipline, and accordingly, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to quote or discuss the levels of discipline permissible under Groups II and III of Policy 6.37 or Policy 6.38. It further appears that combinations of the penalties of written reprimand and suspension, with or without pay, are authorized, and each offense is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Also, it appears that all penalties listed in any School Board Policy are recommended, but not mandatory, to apply to specific offenses and that the penalty utilized is to be discretionary with management, per Policies 6.37, and 6.38. Policy 6.38, authorizes the Superintendent to suspend employees without pay for up to 10 days as a disciplinary measure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner: Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent O'Brien's reprimand and suspension without pay for five days; and Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent DiPaolo's reprimand and suspension without pay for three days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 15th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Hwy. 19 North, Ste. 110 Clearwater, FL 33761 Dr. Wayne Alexander, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue Whether Petitioner has “just cause” to terminate Respondent’s employment as a bus operator due to incompetency and/or misconduct, for violation of Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and for violations of School Board Policies 5.02, 5.03, and/or 5.29.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Lee County, Florida (Petitioner) is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Lee County, Florida. Dennis Osterbrink (Respondent), has been employed with Petitioner since September 21, 2006. Respondent has maintained his qualifications and is currently assigned as a bus operator in Petitioner’s transportation department. Respondent’s employment is governed by the agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) and Petitioner. In October 2007, Respondent was operating a school bus route which transported students to and from Alva Elementary/Middle School. At that time it was reported to Transportation Supervisor Joe Howard that Respondent had claimed to a Sheriff’s deputy and other school board employees that the students on his bus were all “gang members” and were using gang signs and drugs. Following an investigation into the incident, Respondent was removed from the Alva Elementary/Middle School route for the remainder of the 2007-2008 school year. Respondent was then placed on a route driving students to and from East Lee County High School (ELCHS). In the Fall of 2008, Respondent, while assigned an ELCHS route, was making disparaging remarks about the students on his route. Respondent was counseled by Joe Howard about the comments he was making concerning the students. He was also counseled about an incident where he initiated his route too early and, as a result, only picked up four students, when the route typically had in excess of 30 students. Following the incidents involving the students from ELCHS, in early October 2008, Respondent went into the office of Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation East and alleged that Joe Howard, Respondent’s immediate supervisor and an African- American, was a “cell leader” of the “Black Panthers” political organization, and that he was recruiting students on his bus and in the school to plan a revolution. Respondent brought Morgan to Howard’s work space and showed him a picture of a black panther, that Howard had leaning against his cubical. Respondent offered this example as evidence of Howard’s affiliation with the Black Panthers. Respondent insisted to Morgan that the School District should contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security regarding Howard because he was collecting money from students as a “cell leader” of the Black Panthers, and was a danger to the community. Examination of the photograph revealed that the panther was shown in its natural habitat, with no indications of a political or any other message or insignia on it. Respondent offered no other proof to support his allegations. As a result of Respondent’s unsupported allegations, Respondent was removed from the East Lee County route, from under the supervision of Howard, and also from the Buckingham Compound and placed at the Six Mile Cypress Transportation compound. Howard’s testimony is credible that the picture of the panther in his office had no meaning, other than possibly as a school mascot. In addition, it is found that Howard is not a security risk to the School District or to the community. This is particularly the case since Howard served 21 years in the military and was honorably discharged and has worked more than 18 years for Petitioner as an exemplary employee. On March 30, 2009, Respondent was involved in a minor traffic mishap in the parking lot of the Six Mile Cypress Transportation compound with Linda Leamy, a fellow bus operator. Leamy is an African-American. After work, while backing out of a parking space, Respondent backed into Leamy’s car as it was passing by Respondent’s parking spot. Respondent’s vehicle struck the driver’s side rear door of her car. Leamy testified that she has been a bus operator for nine years and up until March 30, 2009, had never had dealings with Respondent. Following the collision, Leamy got out of her car to check the damage and to check to see if Respondent was injured or not. Respondent immediately began to disparage her by calling her a “stupid idiot.” Respondent used the term “bitches,” which was directed towards Leamy as he yelled at her. A crowd began to gather at the scene of the collision because Respondent was raising his voice. At that time, Leamy called dispatch and a supervisor came and escorted Respondent away from the scene. On May 15, 2009, Respondent was in the driver’s lounge at the Six Mile Cypress Transportation compound, and as he walked by a group of co-workers, he thought he heard another co- worker, Chrishaundra Phillips, say something derogatory directed towards him. Phillips is also African-American. Leamy was seated at a table nearby but was not involved. Respondent approached Phillips and said, “I know what you said.” Respondent then became irate, and slammed his hand on the table where Leamy was seated, and stated to her, “We can take care of this right now, let’s take it outside.” Respondent then stated, “I will defend myself against you people . . . .” Leamy stood up and asked everyone to witness Respondent’s actions. Respondent then stormed toward the exit door, which was not blocked, but yelled at another co-worker Vonetta Vickers, also an African-American, to “get out of my fucking way.” Respondent then called all the employees in the lounge a “bunch of gangsters” and stated, “Don’t push me or I’ll push back.” Morgan was called to handle the situation. Respondent’s irrational actions on May 15, 2009, were similar to his actions on March 30, 2009, and caused Leamy to be “scared,” and also to feel as though Respondent had it “out for her.” The testimony by several witnesses is reliable that on May 15, 2009, Respondent, while engaged in the confrontation in the drivers lounge, was using several types of racial remarks, including, “You people need to go back to where you came from, back to the housing projects; what are you going to do, get your gangs to beat me up?” Respondent also used the phrase, “all you black people” and the word “nigger” during his tirade. On August 10, 2009, while under suspension, Respondent was permitted to engage in bidding for a route for the 2009-2010 school year. While attending the bidding session, at Dunbar High School, Respondent informed Morgan that while walking through the parking lot, two black males drove passed him in a car, smoking cigars and made a shooting gesture towards him. When Morgan checked on the two students, he discovered that they were band members who were on campus as members of the marching band. There was no evidence presented to substantiate Respondent’s claims that they had threatened him. Respondent’s bizarre and racially motivated behavior continued. In late September 2009, Respondent filed a petition in the Circuit Court seeking a restraining order against both Leamy and Howard. Respondent alleged that Leamy tampered with his mail box; that she was in a gang; and that she was in the Black Panthers organization and had showed him some kind of weapon during the bidding. Respondent alleged that Howard threatened him in a parking lot; that he would have Respondent shot to death by two individuals; that his mailbox was tampered with; and that Howard was stalking him and was having others under his control stalk him. Both petitions were dismissed by the court. At a predetermination conference held on October 14, 2009, Respondent indicated that he was being terrorized by African-Americans and that Petitioner and its staff were complicit in this terrorism. He requested that Petitioner report all of the activities that he had alleged in the past to the United States Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Respondent indicated that he was undergoing psychological and psychiatric counseling because of all of the “racial issues” he was dealing with, but failed to offer specifics regarding such treatment. Dr. Gregory Adkins, Chief Human Resources Officer, testified that Respondent’s testimony at the predetermination conference was “quite alarming.” He concluded that Respondent was not being specifically targeted by anyone and that Respondent was making “outlandish claims” that racism somehow runs through everything. Dr. Adkins stated that he questioned Respondent’s mental stability. Respondent was rated as effective in his annual performance assessment at the end of the school years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. Respondent was recommended for retention in his position, although two of his routing supervisors expressed concern about his communication skills with co-workers. The testimony is clear that Respondent is displaying irrational, paranoid behaviors while on the job, and should not be around students. It is apparent that Respondent cannot effectively supervise students while they are under his care on a school bus. Respondent has a severe problem coping or interacting with ethnically diverse people, which is characterized by his paranoid behavior, as outlined by the incidents highlighted above in this case. Respondent was thoroughly advised of his right to present testimony in his own defense, but he declined to testify in his own behalf. In addition, the testimony of the other witnesses presented by Petitioner was credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County, enter a final order holding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent for violation of School Board Policies 5.02(2), (4) and 5.29(1); and that Respondent should be dismissed from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collin Hall, has been employed with the Lee County School District since August 13, 2001. He is currently assigned as a Bus Operator in Petitioner’s Transportation Department. Respondent is a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (“SPALC”) and has been a member during all times relevant to this matter. Respondent was assigned as an unassigned regular (UAR) bus operator during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school year. A UAR is available each day to be assigned to a bus when the regular driver is out sick or if the bus route is challenging. The District considers a UAR bus operator as its most professional bus operator. The allegations against Respondent are set forth in the Petition for Termination of Employment filed with DOAH (the Petition). In relevant part, the Petition charges Respondent with the following: failing to control students on the bus Respondent was operating; failing to protect students on the bus if an emergency should develop due to the conduct of the students; failing to ensure that each passenger on the bus was wearing a safety belt; failing to maintain order and discipline, require all passengers remain seated and keep the aisles clear, and immediately report to the designated official student misconduct occurring on the bus in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.017; grabbing a student in violation of Board Policy 5.26; failing to adhere to the highest ethical standards and to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students in violation of Board Policies 5.02 and 5.29; and failing to call a dispatcher for assistance if a discipline problem is not resolved in a few minutes as outlined in the Lee County School District’s Handbook for bus operators. Respondent attended various trainings during his tenure with the District, including training entitled, “Wolfgang Student Management,” “All Safe in their Seats,” “Dealing with Difficult Students/Seatbelts,” “Bully on Bus,” “ESE Behavior” and “First Line of Defense.” All of these classes provided training in student management or student discipline on a school bus. In addition to receiving yearly and periodic training, Respondent was provided a manual entitled “School Bus Driver’s Manual, Critical Incident Procedures” published by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and distributed by the District to all bus operators. Page 14 of the manual outlines the procedures to be used for disruptive students. The Bus Driver’s Manual further provides in its Introduction that: The procedures outlined in this document are guidelines (emphasis added) and should be reviewed and tailored by each school district to conform to local policies – always (emphasis theirs) adhere to the district emergency procedures. Although these guidelines reflect the best practices of several Florida school district transportation departments, no one can foresee the details of every emergency. Many emergencies require the driver’s best judgment, keeping in mind the priorities of life safety (sic), protection of property and the environment. In keeping with the FDOE’s directive to tailor the guidelines to conform to the District’s local policies, the District established a policy for the “Preservation of Order on Special Needs Bus.” That policy is outlined in Robert Morgan’s August 24, 2008, Memorandum to Professional Standards. It requires the school bus operator “and/or attendant” to preserve order and good behavior on the part of all pupils being transported. It also provides that: shall an emergency develop due to conduct of the pupils on the bus, the bus driver and/or attendant shall take steps reasonably necessary to protect the pupils on the bus. They are not obligated to place themselves in physical danger; however, they are obligated to immediately report pupil misconduct to a Transportation Supervisor. (emphasis supplied) On May 21, 2008, Respondent was assigned to Bus 999, along with bus attendant Kelia Wallace. Bus 999 transported students that attend Royal Palm Exceptional Center. Royal Palm Exceptional Center is a school that educates students with special needs, including those that may have emotional issues that result in disruptive behavior. All Royal Palm students have Individual Education Plans that require special transportation. Bus 999 was equipped with an audio and video recording system, as are all Exceptional Student Education (ESE) busses in Lee County. The audio and video are recorded to a hard drive which can be viewed at a later time. Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation South, was alerted of an issue on Bus 999 on the evening of May 21, 2008. Morgan was informed that Bus 999 made an unscheduled stop at the San Carlos Park Fire Station during its afternoon route earlier that day. As a result, on the morning of May 22, 2008, Morgan viewed the video recording from Bus 999 from the previous afternoon. Following his review of the footage, Morgan directed a member of his staff to copy the relevant portions of the raw footage to a compact disc. The information on the disc was then forwarded to the District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity for review and further investigation. There was some testimony from Respondent doubting the accuracy of the video and inferring that the video had been altered in some way. However, the record is devoid of any evidence to contradict the audio and video evidence submitted on compact disc by the District. In addition, there was credible eye witness testimony relative to the incident. After Respondent picked up the students at their school and was following the route to deliver them home, Student C.M. was acting inappropriately in the back of the bus. From his driver’s seat, Respondent commanded C.M. to sit down, which was ignored. Respondent pulled over, stopped the bus and proceeded to the back of the bus to deal with C.M. Respondent grabbed C.M., lifted him off the floor of the bus, carried him several rows forward, and put him into another seat on the bus. C.M. was not kicking, punching or threatening any other student when Respondent took this action. C.M. continued to carry on a taunting dialogue with students, including J.O., who was in the back of the bus. Respondent then proceeded on the route. After several minutes Respondent noticed some paper sitting in the middle of the aisle. While the bus was moving, Respondent ordered J.O. to come forward in the aisle to retrieve the piece of paper he had thrown toward the front of the bus. As a result, J.O. walked by C.M. who was still taunting J.O. and other students. The two students then become involved in a physical altercation. Respondent said nothing and continued to drive the bus. The two students continued to fight for approximately 40 seconds before Respondent stopped the bus and walked toward the back of the bus to get a closer look. The fight continued for an entire minute before Respondent took any action to intervene or break up the fight. Instead, Respondent instructed his bus attendant to write up a disciplinary referral (students fighting), but stood nearby and watched the students fight. Respondent said nothing to the students. Respondent then turned his back on the fight, threw up his hands in disgust and returned to the driver’s seat to resume driving the bus. Respondent did not contact dispatch or law enforcement regarding the fight. Approximately 30 seconds later, student C.M. yelled an expletive at student J.S. J.S. came forward, confronted C.M., and battered him to the point where C.M. ended up on the floor of the bus, where J.S. punched and kicked him numerous times. Respondent said nothing. The incident continued for another 20 seconds before J.S. backed off. Respondent again walked down the aisle toward the students. While lying on the floor between the seats, C.M. complained that he was injured. Respondent waited several seconds prior to attempting to assess C.M.’s injuries. Respondent then stated to C.M., “Let me see your nose.” Respondent observed that C.M. suffered a bloody nose as a result of the altercation. Respondent did not provide any immediate medical attention or care to C.M. Respondent returned to the driver’s seat and began to drive. Respondent drove the bus to the San Carlos Park Fire Department station where C.M. received first aide from an Emergency Medical Technician. C.M.’s father was also notified and responded to the scene. Respondent attempted to defend his conduct by indicating that he would have been injured or he could have injured one of the students if he attempted to break up the altercations. This testimony is not credible. Respondent admitted that bus operators are prohibited from picking up students and that he should have used verbal prompts during the other incidents to urge the students to stop fighting. Respondent testified that prior to the events depicted on video, C.M. had responded to an earlier verbal prompt by the bus attendant to return to his seat. Respondent’s testimony is inconsistent and not entirely credible in this regard. In a further effort to mitigate Respondent’s conduct, Respondent’s counsel attempted to portray the students on the bus as completely uncontrollable and the District or school as unsupportive of the bus operators hired to transport these students. However, credible evidence showed that disruptive students were regularly suspended from the bus and from school. C.M. had proven to be a discipline problem on the bus. C.M. historically was confrontational and argumentative with the other students. Notwithstanding C.M.’s prior history of misconduct and violence on the bus, the District suspended C.M. from the bus for one day. Whether Respondent failed to take adequate corrective measures to ensure that C.M. did not repeat such actions prior to allowing him to continue riding the bus is irrelevant to this proceeding. However, Respondent was aware that at least one of the students on the bus had been previously disciplined for inappropriate conduct. Respondent had experience transporting Royal Palm students and had transported Royal Palm students previously during the 2007-2008 school year. In addition, Respondent stated that he had attended all of the training the District provided regarding the discipline and handling of disruptive students on a school bus. It is clear from the record that Respondent had been trained to deal with such students. Respondent mentioned the word “judgment” repeatedly throughout his testimony. Although judgment plays a role in the control of student behavior, the FDOE School Bus Driver’s Manual spells out the protocol for dealing with disruptive students. The first three things a bus operator is to do is to tell students to stop fighting, pull off the road to a safe place and call dispatch and have them contact parents. Judgment is not a part of any of the above instructions, and Respondent failed to follow two out of three requirements. He neither told the students to stop fighting nor called dispatch to inform them of the fights. The bus operator is then to go to the area of the fight, assess the situation, identify the students involved and attempt to gain control. If the operator cannot gain control the FDOE manual states that the operator should radio for help, remove other students from the area of the fight, intervene if the situation is life-threatening, or if not, to monitor and wait for assistance and use reasonable force to prevent injury to himself and the students. Respondent never attempted to gain control of the situation and then, when it did get out of control, he never radioed for help, removed other students from the area of the fight or used reasonable force to prevent injury to the students. Morgan testified that Respondent’s alleged violation of the policy for safety belts was “not the issue,” and the District was not seeking to discipline Respondent for anything related to the non-use of safety belts. Consequently, the District effectively withdrew this charge at hearing. Also, the District did not introduce as evidence the School District of Lee County Transportation Services Operator’s, Assistant’s and Monitor’s Handbook. The charge that Respondent did not follow the procedure as outlined in the Handbook therefore fails for lack of evidence. Respondent failed to comply with the District’s policy for preserving order on a special needs bus. He did not exercise his best judgment. His testimony as to why he did not physically intervene in the fights between C.M. and J.O. and J.S. for fear that he would injure himself or the students is not credible. Although he directed Ms. Wallace to write disciplinary referrals for the students that were fighting, this was inadequate. He did, however, obtain emergency medical care for C.M., and notified the dispatch center of the Transportation Department of the fight and the fact that he was required to divert his route of travel to the fire station for medical care. Immediately, upon his return to the bus compound, Respondent completed and filed with his supervisor an Incident Report detailing the events on the bus that afternoon. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent violated the policies recited in the Petition as a., b., c., d., e., and f. Since Respondent commenced working for the District, he received one probationary and seven annual performance assessments. With the exception of his 2007-2008 performance assessment, Respondent always scored at an “Effective level of performance observed,” except one score of “Inconsistently practiced” in his 2003-2004 assessment for the area targeted of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Respondent’s supervisor consistently recommended him for reemployment, including the 2008-2009 school year. In his 2007-2008 annual performance assessment, Respondent received a score of “Effective level of performance observed” in 29 out of a total of 32 areas targeted for assessment. Respondent received two scores of “Inconsistently practiced” for the areas of “Reports to work as expected unless an absence has been authorized” and “Reports to work on time as determined by route schedules,” and one score of “Unacceptable level of performance observed” for the area of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Although the District’s performance assessment form provides that Criteria marked “I” or “U” require additional documentation, there was no evidence of any such documentation. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was disciplined on two occasions. Respondent was involved in a physical altercation with another employee in February of 2008 and as a result he was suspended for three days without pay. In addition, Respondent was suspended for an additional three days without pay for causing a disruption on another bus operator’s route. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent and dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Exception No. 1 - That portion of Findings of Fact No. 15, which finds that "(t)he Division has consistently denied Petitioners the right to purchase their service with the Pawley companies", is clearly erroneous and not substantiated by the evidence of record. Petitioners are correct in that the Division has advised them by letter (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, #17B) that they were able to buy their prior service with Pawley at full actuarial cost. However, that was not an issue nor the subject of this proceeding, and the finding of fact must be considered in the context of the ultimate issue in this case, that being whether or not the Petitioners were entitled to purchase their prior service at the reduced rates provided in Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes. ,with respect to that issue, the Division has consistently denied Petitioners the right to purchase their prior service. The Report of Proceedings of the Dade County Independent Review Panel (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, #10) contains a similar statement. That statement appears to be based on statements of Mr. Stone and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, #17B, above. The Report of Proceedings is hearsay and duplicates the facts and exhibits presented at the hearing. In the context of the issue in this case, the Proposed Finding of Fact No. 15 is correct, and Petitioners' exception is rejected being without factual basis in the record. Exception No. 2 - That portion of Findings of Fact No. 17, which finds that "the IRP de- termined what the "Cut-Off" date of March 27, 1962, was a "reasonable decision" to end the "period of solicitation", is irrelevant and immaterial, unless it is considered together with whether the Petitioners were given ade- cuate notice of that "reasonable decision". Petitioners claim that the above finding is irrelevant and immaterial unless considered together with the "issue" of adequate notice. The only question the Division may consider is whether or not the finding of fact was based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Since there is no evidence in record to contradict the proposed finding of fact, it is the only finding that the Hearing Officer or the Division could have reached. It is based on competent, substantial evidence in the record. The proposed finding of fact was made based on the finding of the Independent Review Panel in its Report of Proceedings. Petitioners accepted the report of the Panel and placed the Report into evidence at the hearing. They are not attempting a collateral attack on the report. Such an attack should not be a-lowed In the absence of good and sufficient reason. The question of relevancy and materiality raised by Petitioners is an appropriate objection at the time the evidence is introduced at the hearing but is inappropriate in attacking a finding of fact In a recommended order. Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 3 - That portion of Findings of Faction 20 which finds that "(i)t is under- standable that Dade County gassed a resolution simply supporting Petitioners in their claims, rather than placing Petitioners in their claims situation as any other Pawley employee who came to work for Dade County before 3/27/62, since the latter position would cost Dade County $104,696 for retroactive benefits. Petitioners claim the above finding 15 clearly erroneous and misleading, and not supported by substantial and competent evidence In the record. Petitioners discuss certain amounts necessary to purchase employee benefits and other amounts needed to purchase creditable service in the Florida Retirement System. By discussing the two amounts as if they were one amount, Petitioners clearly show their understanding of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. The Division advised Petitioners that it would cost Petitioner Stone $18,997.12 and Petitioner Wilson $11,657.23 to purchase their prior service should they prevail in the case at bar. In the event Dade County had considered all three petitioners to be continuously employed from the date of the strike to the respective dates of their reemployment the cost to the County to pay retroactive benefits would have been 5104.E95. Since the County and not consider Petitioners to be employees during this period, it did not pay for the normal employees fringe benefits. The payment of those benefits (albeit, retroactively) is represented by the $104,695 amount. Thus, the two amounts discussed by Petitioners represent two different funds; one to be paid by Petitioners for prior service, and one to be paid by Dade County for fringe benefits, but not including Petitioners' prior service. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion that their employment percentent and payroll status from the date of the strike to the respective dates of reemployment was not the issue in this case, the Division believes that that issue is at the very heart of this case. In order to purchase their prior service at the rates permitted by Section 121.081(1)(g) , Florida Statutes, Petitioners had to be employees of the County on March 2, 1962. If they were employees, then they are due the appropriate employee benefits for that period of time. However, since the County did not pay those benefits, then Petitioners were obviously not employees during the period at issue and, therefore, not eligible to purchase the creditable service under Section 121.06.1(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 4 - That portion of Findings or Fact No. 22 which finds that "/i/n addition to the obvious fact that petitioners were par- ticipating in an illegal strike and were in violation of the restraining order of the cir- cuit court, they voluntarily abandoned their right to employment by not commencing their jobs by March 27, 1962", is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. In reviewing this proceeding to determine the legality vel non of the strike, It seems obvious that the strike was illegal under one or both of two principles (see Finding of Fact No. 4). First, it was illegal under existing state law; and second, it was illegal for being in violation of the injunction issued by the circuit court. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, pg. 271. The union in which Petitioners ware members, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric, Railway and Motor Coach Employee of America ("Union") was involved in labor negotiations concerning the future status of the Union after the transfer. The County filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court (Respondent's Exhibits 4 against the Union. In its final decree, the circuit court stated in part that: "2. plaintiffs are not require by law to offer employment to members of the defendant union, . . . plaintiffs are not authorized by law to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with defendants and would not be authorized to do so upon consummation of the contractual transaction evidenced by the record in this cause. plaintiffs are not authorized to recog- nized as lawful any strike directed against them and would not be authorized to do so upon consummation of the con- tractual transaction evidenced by-the record in this cause." (Respondent's Exhibit 4, numbered pages 199-200) Notwithstanding the above provisions the Union went on strike on January 29, 1962 (Respondent's Exhibit.4, numbered pg. 256); the Court, after issuing an order to show cause (id. numbered pg. 259), ordered that the Union was "enjoined and restrained from striking or continuing any strike for the purpose of covering the plaintiffs (county) or any other governmental agency to engage in collective bargaining". (Id, numbered pg. 271) However, the Union continued on strike. The case was appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. The illegality of the strike under state law was affirmed by that court in Dade County v. Amalgamated Assn. of S.E.R. of M.C. Employees, et al, 157 So.2d 176, 183 (Fla. 3rd DC. 1963). The second issue concerning the violation of the injunction was never appealed, and the Union and its members were in continued violation of the injunction by remaining on strike. Accordingly, petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 5 - That portion of Findings of Fact No. 23, which finds that "/p/etitioners claim that any returning strikers employed more than "one day" after the takeover, had a in service", is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. Petitioners claim that absence from employment of "one calendar month" constitutes a "break in continuous service". In reviewing the exhibits, we note that petitioners' Exhibit No. 2, 12, listed 33 individuals who were prior employees of the Pawley companies, went on strike and returned to work by March 27, 1962. These individuals were given retroactive benefits by Dade County and, therefore, the right to purchase the prior service under Section 121.081(1), Florida Statutes. Some of those individuals were hired by the County before the end of "one calendar month" (that is to say, before March 9, 1962) and others were hired after that date. Petitioners originally argued that an absence of one day constituted a break in service. Apparently, they have changed their position since the hearing and now argue that "one calendar month" constitutes a "break in continuous service". However, based on the facts shown and the arguments bade at the hearing the Hearing Officer's finding of fact is correct and is based on competent substantial evidence. Even if Petitioners were correct, the change from "one day" to "one calendar month" would not change the fact that they did not become employees of the County as a result of the transfer or merger of the private bus company. Petitioners' objection is rejected. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Exception No. E - Conclusion of Law No. 4. Petitioners' claim that Dade County recognized and credited them with their past service with Pawley. The evidence and testimony given at the hearing does not substantiate their claim. While the transmittal letter of Mr. Talbert (Petitioners' Exhibit No.2,#14) states that the "County Commission instructed the County Manager that the above subject employees shall be considered by Dade County to have an original employment date reflecting their employment with the Pawley companies", the actual motion by Commissioner Shack was "that Hodowud, Stone and Wilson be permitted to purchase their past services from the Satate of Florida at the reduced rate." Further, the testimony of Mr. Richard Jay Weiss, Assistant Dade County Attorney, and his exhibit (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) do not support Petitioners' position. The Exhibit states in part as follows: ". . .the County Commission has gone on record by motion to urge the State Retirement System to allow the three present claimants to receive their back time at the reduced rate". Thus, the County merely urged the Division to allow Petitioners to purchase their prior service and did not itself credit them with their past service with retroactive fringe benefits. The bearing Officer's conclusion of law is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No.7 - Conclusion of Law No. 5 Petitioners' claim that the Hearing Officers' conclusion that they did not enjoy an employee/employer relationship at the time of takeover is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Section 11 of Ordinance 60-23 of Dade County (petitioners' Exhibit 2, item 1) states that: "whenever the County acquires existing transit systems or facilities from a publicly or pri- vately owned public utility, to the extent necessary or feasible for the economical opera- tion of such facilities, all of the employees of such acquired transit system whose duties pertain to the facilities acquired shall be employed In comparable positions in the County service and the pay status, seniority, vacation and sick leave rights shall be preserved and maintained to the fullest possible extent. All employees of the Authority shall be deemed, con- sidered or construed as County employees and shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and benefits of County employees." Since the County cannot force any person to work or it the words "all of the employees" and "shall be employed" can logically only refer to those employees who decide to go to work for the County and conversely do not include those employees who voluntarily decide not to work for the County. In addition to the fact that the Hearing Officer found that Petitioners were participating in an illegal strike and were in violation of the restraining order of the circuit court, Petitioners voluntarily abandoned their right to employment by not returning to their jobs by March 27, 1962. Later, when they finally did commence employment with MTA, they were hired as new employees rather than previous employees who were being given reemployment. The hearing officer's conclusion of law is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 8 - Conclusion of Law No. 7 Petitioners argue that the met their burden of proving that they were entitled to purchase their service under Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes; however, they offer no basis in law or fact would allow the Division to conclude the Hearing Officer was in error. In the absence of an adequate legal basis or contrary evidence in the record, the Division rejects Petitioners' objection. By motion prior to the hearing, Petitioners Wilson and Stone moved to add Metropolitan Dade County as a art Respondent. The motion was denied by the bearing Officer, and the Division hereby adopts that ruling as part of this final order. The Recommended Order is corrected at page 8, paragraph 20, line 6, wherein the month of "January" is changed to read "February". WHEREFORE based upon the foregoing findings, holdings and rulings or the Division as to Petitioners' exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, it is, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that each and every exception of the Petitioners' to the Recommended Order be and the same are OVERRULED and REJECTED. It is further, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that copy of said Recommended Order is attached hereto and incorporated as part of this final order. It is further, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Petitioners' requests to purchase in the Florida Retirement System their prior service with the Pawley companies at the rates allowed in Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes, are denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October, 1983. J. MULLIAN, III State Retirement Director Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Retirement this 21st day of October, 1983. Edna E. Canino, Esquire 1609 NW 14th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Edward F. Hodowud 8874 Emerson Avenue Surfside, Florida 33154 Linda M. Rigot, Hearing Officer Dan Brown, Esquire Division of Administrative Hearings John Finney, Esquire The Oakland Building Paul McMahon 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioners' requests to purchase in the Florida Retirement System their prior service with the Pawley companies at a reduced rate pursuant to Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edna E Canino, Esquire 1609 NW 14th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Mr. Edward F. Hodowud 8874 Emerson Avenue Surfside, Florida 33154 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT NORMA WILSON, EDWARD F. HODOWUD, and, WESLEY E. STONE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3192 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
