The Issue Did Respondent Mary Jane Nilsen violate the policies of Petitioner School Board of Highlands County (Board) and thereby justify a five-day suspension without pay?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Board is the county agency responsible for operating the public schools within the Highlands County School District as established in Chapter 228, Florida Statutes, including the hiring of, among other personnel, school bus drivers. Respondent has been employed in the Polk County School System as a school bus driver since 1991. Respondent is employed pursuant to an annual contract. Dr. Calvin Smith testified that if an employee such as Respondent has been employed by the Board for 3 continuous years, then that employee would be eligible for a continuing contract. Although Respondent had been employed continuously by the Board for more than 3 years, there was no evidence that Respondent had been granted a continuing contract by the Board which would require the Board to show just cause for disciplining Respondent. By letter dated June 11, 1996, Superintendent Farmer advised Respondent that he was recommending to the Board that she be suspended for five days without pay based on information submitted to him "by Mr. Roy Wright, Coordinator of Transportation, Mr. Calvin Smith, Director of Operations, and the recommendation of Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent." By letter dated June 11, 1996, Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent, advised Superintendent Farmer, based on the information submitted to him by Mr. Roy Wright and Calvin Smith, that he was recommending a five-day suspension without pay for Respondent. By letter dated June 6, 1996, Mr. Roy Wright advised Dr. Calvin Smith that he recommended a five-day suspension for Respondent. The letter in pertinent part provides: I am recommending that Mrs. Mary Jane Nilsen, a bus driver, be suspended from work without pay for five days. Mrs. Nilsen was involved in a confrontation with several other bus drivers in the Lake Placid compound on the morning of May 31. * * * Mrs. Nilsen has had several previous episodes of angry and belligerent behavior which have resulted in actions with the progressive discipline practice. The first such incident was October 21, 1994, when Mrs. Nilsen was given a verbal warning for a "loud, rude and very discourteous" exchange with her supervisor. . . . Also, in February of this year, I gave Mrs. Nilsen a written letter of reprimand for "belligerent, hostile and insubordinate" behavior toward the Area Transportation Manager and the Transportation Operations Supervisor. These actions took place during a conference with Mrs. Nilsen and several other drivers in the Lake Placid Transportation office. . . You will note that in my letter of February 28, I warned Mrs. Nilsen that a future incident could result in a five day suspension without pay. * * * Therefore, I am recommending her suspension without pay for five days consistent with the progressive discipline Provision of the negotiated agreement. (Emphasis furnished). A copy of this letter was forwarded to Dr. John Martin, Deputy Superintendent, by Dr. Calvin Smith with a note that Dr. Smith concurred in Mr. Wright's recommendation. The letter of February 28, 1996, from Roy Wright to Respondent provides in pertinent part as follows: This letter is in reference to the meeting and discussion that you and several drivers had with Mrs. Carlene Varnes, Area Transportation Manager and Mrs. Shirley Higgins, Transportation Operations Manager on Monday morning February 26. You will consider that the outcome of Mrs. Hiagins and Mrs. Varnes discussion with you stands as a verbal warning. I am writing to you in order to emphasize the position of the department regarding your conduct. Your will refrain from the use of profanity at any time you are in the uniform of a Highlands County School Bus Driver, particularly when you are in the presence of other School Bus Drivers and School Board Employees. The incident at a local restaurant on Friday, February 23, occurred while you and other school bus drivers were in uniform. Other drivers present asked you to quiet down and stop the vulgar language. Your failure to do so created an intimidating, hostile and offensive situation which has a direct bearing on the work environment. . . The language and actions on your part also presented an unfavorable and unacceptable image which undermines the public's perception of school bus drivers as professionals. In addition, your reaction to the management staff when this matter was brought to your attention can only be described as belligerent, hostile and insubordinate. . . Your response to your immediate supervisor when she was investigating the matter and warning you of inappropriate conduct while in uniform was completely out of line. You may consider this a written reprimand for that action. You have now received a verbal warning and a written reprimand. The next incident may result in a five day suspension without pay. (Emphasis furnished). It appears that the verbal warning and written reprimand were based on the same incident. This letter does not mention the October 21, 1994, verbal warning. Respondent did not challenge the verbal warning given to her for the infraction observed on October 21, 1994. Likewise, Respondent did not challenge Mr. Wright's decision to issue a verbal warning and written reprimand for the infraction observed on February 26, 1996. Carlene Varnes, Area Transportation Manager at Lake Placid, gave Kala Barfield and two other bus drivers permission to wash their buses in the wash area of the bus compound at Lake Placid on May 31, 1966. The record is not clear, but apparently Barfield and the other bus drivers were allowed to wash their buses during the busy time of other bus drivers coming into the compound to park. On May 31, 1996, Barfield backed her bus into the wash area of the bus compound at Lake Placid. However, Barfield could not get her bus entirely into the wash area due to a vehicle (van) being parked in the wash area. Barfield made no attempt to have the owner move the vehicle. Also, at this same time Brenda Sullivan was fueling her bus which, along with Barfield washing her bus, created a situation where other bus drivers would have to carefully navigate between the two buses in order to park their buses. While Barfield was washing her bus and Sullivan was fueling her bus, Respondent entered the compound and pulled her bus "nose-to-nose" with Barfield's bus, leaving approximately 15 to 20 feet between the buses. Respondent testified that she made no attempt to navigate between Barfield's and Sullivan's buses while Sullivan was fueling her bus because Respondent had determined that her bus could not be navigated between the two buses without incident. With Respondent's bus parked as it was, all other buses entering the compound were unable to navigate around Respondent's bus and park. Therefore, once the area of the compound behind Respondent's bus was filled, other buses were forced to park on the road outside the compound. Respondent's action in this regard violated Board policy of not blocking buses in the compound and created a hazardous condition for those buses parked on the road. . Respondent was aware that buses entering the compound after her were unable to navigate past her bus and that bus traffic was "piling up" behind Respondent, creating a problem out in the road. Respondent was also aware of those bus drivers behind her attempting to get Respondent to move. Although Respondent may have believed that she could not navigate her bus around Barfield's and Sullivan's buses, she made no attempt to alleviate this hazardous situation by requesting another available bus driver or anyone else for assistance in navigating her bus around Barfield's and Sullivan's bus. The incident lasted approximately 10 to 20 minutes. Varnes was advised immediately of the situation, but due to an emergency with another bus driver, Varnes was unable to address this problem immediately. By the time Varnes was able to address the problem, Sullivan had finished fueling her bus and moved it. Upon Varnes coming on the scene, she told Respondent to move her bus and Respondent did so. However, Respondent parked her bus in backwards which created a problem for other buses attempting to get by. Upon being advised that her bus was incorrectly parked, Respondent corrected the situation. It is clear that Respondent did not like the idea of Barfield being allowed to wash her bus while other buses were attempting to park, and so expressed that view on May 31, 1996. As a result, Barfield attempted to discuss this matter with Respondent in a somewhat heated fashion, but Respondent boarded her bus and closed the door preventing any further conversation on the matter with Barfield.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for a period of 5 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1997, in Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Richard R. Farmer Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 9300 Sebring, Florida 33870-4098 James F. McCollum, Esquire Clay Oberhausen, Esquire 129 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 Mark Herdman, Esquire 34650 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (NSC) filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been a duly constituted School Board pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2005).1 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been a member of AFSCME and, as such, has been entitled to the benefits of the AFSCME Contract. Since November 15, 2002, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a school bus driver and assigned to the North Regional Transportation Center (NRTC). Until this incident, Respondent had not been disciplined by Petitioner. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Carter was a school bus attendant assigned to the NRTC. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cone was a Field Operations Specialist assigned to the NRTC and had supervisory authority over Ms. Carter and Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sweeting was the Director of Petitioner’s NRTC and had supervisory authority over Ms. Cone. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Moss was a District Director in the Office of Professional Standards and assisted with performance and discipline of employees. She ensured that Petitioner complied with applicable due process requirements during a disciplinary proceeding. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. School Board Rule 6Gx13-E-1.10 incorporates by reference Petitioner’s Handbook for School Bus Drivers, Aides, and Operations Staff (Handbook). Section 3 of the Handbook is captioned “School Bus Driver Guidelines and Procedures.” Section 3.4 of the Handbook, captioned “Duties,” imposes the following duties on a school bus driver: . . . Drivers must report defective equipment to their Dispatch Office in writing on the “Driver’s Request for Repair (DRR)” form. The report must be made as soon as possible after the problem is detected. . . . If the driver encounters a problem while operating the vehicle, the Dispatch Office must be notified immediately and the driver must wait for instructions from the garage. Section 3.3 of the Handbook, captioned “Regulations,” imposes the following responsibilities on a school bus driver: “. . . Prepare immediately an accident report after every accident involving the bus or bus passenger. This report must be completed with the driver’s supervisor. Section 10 of the Handbook is captioned “Operating Procedures and Safe Driving Principles.” Section 10.1 of the Handbook, captioned “School Bus Operation,” provides as follows: Drivers must perform a complete pre-trip inspection of their assigned buses at least twice daily. The pre-trip inspection must be accomplished before the driver departs the compound with the bus. Pre-trip inspection results must be documented on the form provided for this purpose. . . . On August 20, 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive the bus along school bus Route 22. There is a bridge on Northwest 42nd Avenue between Northwest 179 and 183 Streets (the 42nd Avenue Bridge). On August 20, 2004, the 42nd Avenue Bridge was undergoing construction work. There were barricades, construction cones, and other warning devices that were visible to approaching drivers. Because of the construction, the NRTC had informed school bus drivers not to cross the 42nd Avenue Bridge. Respondent testified that he did not hear that warning, but that he knew the bridge was undergoing construction work. On the morning of August 20, 2004, Ms. Carter was the bus attendant on the bus driven by Respondent. At the time of the accident described below, there were four students on the bus. On the morning of August 20, 2004, Respondent drove the bus across the 42nd Avenue Bridge. There was a dispute between the parties as to what, if anything, occurred while Respondent was driving the bus across the 42nd Avenue Bridge. The greater weight of the competent evidence established that the bus collided with an object on the 42nd Avenue Bridge or with the 42nd Avenue Bridge itself. This accident caused minor damage to the bus.2 Respondent did not immediately stop to inspect the bus. After Respondent crossed the 42nd Avenue, he continued on his route, picked up students, and stopped at North Dade Middle School (NDMS) to drop off students. While stopped at NDMS, Respondent inspected the bus and noticed that the outer tire on the right rear of the bus was flat. Respondent testified that the inner tire on the right rear of the bus did not appear to be damaged. Respondent did not contact or make any report to the transportation dispatch office at that time. Respondent drove the bus with the damaged tire to the NRTC bus parking area. Respondent made the determination that it was safe to drive the bus with the damaged tire without consulting anyone.3 After Respondent returned to the NRTC bus compound, he completed a Driver’s Request for Repair (DRR) form, which indicated that the right rear outer tire needed repair. Because of Respondent’s DRR, the bus was taken from the bus parking area to the garage. After Ms. Carter returned to the bus compound with Respondent, she reported to Ms. Cone that the bus had had an accident as it crossed the 42nd Avenue Bridge. The report was in the form of a message left for Ms. Cone on her voicemail. Ms. Cone received Ms. Carter’s message on August 20, 2004, and promptly went to the parking area and then to the garage. She inspected the bus at the garage. Ms. Cone, who has had extensive experience and training in accident investigation, observed that bus’ right rear tire rim was bent and disfigured and that the bus’ door was damaged. After inspecting the bus, Ms. Cone informed Ms. Sweeting of Ms. Carter’s report and of her own observations. Ms. Sweeting and Ms. Cone immediately thereafter went to the 42nd Avenue Bridge, where they observed markings on the bridge that were consistent with a vehicle coming in contact with the bridge. The white stony color of the damaged area of the bridge was consistent with the white stony color Ms. Cone had observed on the damaged tire rim. Although the markings on the bus and on the bridge were consistent with one another, there was no conclusive proof that the markings observed on the bridge were caused by the bus. Ms. Cone took photographs of the bus and the bridge on August 20, 2004. Ms. Cone subsequently delivered the photographs and a report of the accident to Ms. Sweeting. Prior to the final hearing in this matter, Ms. Sweeting was reassigned to the East Regional Transportation Center. When she left the NRTC, Ms. Sweeting left the photographs in a file on her desk. The photographs were subsequently lost or misplaced. Respondent’s qualified representative made a public record’s request for the photographs and was informed that they had been lost.4 A Conference for the Record (CFR) was conducted on August 23, 2004, with Ms. Sweeting presiding. Also present were Respondent and an AFSCME representative. Ms. Sweeting recommended further disciplinary action. A second CFR was conducted October 29, 2004, with Ms. Moss presiding. Also present were Jerry Klein (Petitioner’s Director of Transportation), Ms. Sweeting, two AFSCME representatives, and Respondent. Following the second CFR, Respondent was required to submit to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Thereafter, Petitioner’s staff made the disciplinary recommendation that was subsequently adopted by Petitioner. The photographs taken by Ms. Cone were available for review at both CFRs. The Handbook does not define the term “accident.” School bus drivers employed by Petitioner are required to undergo training when they are first hired. During training, a driver is taught to immediately report to the transportation dispatcher if his or her bus hits an object and damage to the bus results. A driver is taught that such an incident is an accident. Despite that training, Respondent denied that there had been an accident and explained that he defined an accident as being when someone gets hurt on the bus, when he hits or kills someone, or when he damages the property of another. He would not acknowledge that an accident also includes damaging the bus by hitting a bridge or an object on a bridge. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to document pre-trip inspections on August 18, 19 and 20, 2004. Respondent testified that he actually performed the pre-trip inspections, but that he did no documentation because he could not find the pencil he usually kept on the bus after he returned from sick leave. Respondent’s testimony that he completed the pre-trip inspection but failed to complete the required paperwork, although self-serving, was not refuted. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent did not conduct a pre-trip inspection, but it did prove that Respondent failed to complete the pre-trip inspection report.5 The parties agree that Petitioner has the authority to discipline Respondent for just cause consistent with the principles of progressive discipline. Article XI, Section 1A of the AFSCME Contract provides, under the caption “Due Process”, in relevant part, as follows: . . . Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employees [sic] record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); letter of reprimand; suspension/demotion; dismissal. Article XI, Section 1B of the AFSCME Contract provides, in part, as follows: . . . [I]t is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME . . . members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Article XI, Section 4C of the AFSCME Contract provides that termination of employment may occur if a member is guilty of non-performance of job responsibilities. Article XI, Section 3 of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: If those cases where any employee has not complied with Board Policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order and sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment for 30 calendar days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner established “just cause” to terminate Respondent's employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Moore has been a school bus driver in Seminole County since 2009. The operative facts are not in dispute. On October 24, 2012, Mr. Moore was beginning his morning school bus route. After picking up two students, Mr. Moore, at approximately 6:45 a.m., pulled into a parking lot of a local doughnut shop and parked the bus. Mr. Moore exited the bus, left the school bus door open with the motor idling. Mr. Moore returned within three minutes with a bagel and a soft-drink. All of these events were captured on video, and Mr. Moore does not dispute that this early morning breakfast stop occurred. Mr. Moore's only explanation is that he was not thinking, and had been under a lot of personal stress at the time. The School Board has a specific policy that requires a school bus driver to operate the bus with "maximum regard for the safety of students and due consideration for the protection of health of all students . . . ." School Board Policy 8.31. Moreover, a bus driver is prohibited from using the bus for personal business, and prohibited from leaving the bus' motor unnecessarily idling while in the vicinity of students. School Board Policies 8.48, and 6.22(J). In addition to the School Board Policies, the School Board bus drivers are required to follow the procedures set out in the School Bus Operations Handbook (Handbook). Seminole County Public Schools, Transportation Services, School Bus Operations Handbook, (amended July 2012). Importantly, for this case, the Handbook expressly provides that a driver shall never leave students unattended on the school bus. School Bus Operations Handbook at 247. Further, the Handbook provides that in the event a driver must leave the bus, the driver must set the parking brake and remove the bus keys from the ignition. Id. A school bus driver is then directed to keep the keys in his or her possession. Id. Finally, the Handbook clearly states that the school bus driver is not to leave the approved bus route without permission. Id. Mr. Moore received extensive training in the School Board's policies concerning the safe operation of the school bus and the School Board's expectations for its school bus drivers found in the Handbook. Mr. Moore is sincere in his testimony that he loves his job, and forthright in his admission that he made a mistake in stopping for his morning breakfast while on his bus route.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board terminate Mr. Moore's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 14th day of February, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, School Board of Hillsborough County, operated a school bus system for students attending the public schools run by it within the county. The program was and is administered by several different route coordinators who are authorized to hire the drivers for the buses operated on their routes. In September, 1985, Petitioner, William D. Gibbs, who had previously been working as a pipe fitter since 1972, applied for employment as a school bus driver in the Brandon area, for which Rosa Irene Barrow was the route coordinator. Mr. Gibbs could no longer perform the duties of a pipe fitter as a result of a work-related injury to his left knee incurred in 1984, but was fully capable of operating a bus. When he determined he could no longer work at his former trade, he began looking for other work, with a government agency, preferably, because of the benefits offered by most governmental employers. He applied for several county jobs and with the School Board with whose Job Line he kept in frequent contact. Mr. Gibbs submitted his written application for employment as a school bus driver in September, 1985, at which time he spoke with Ms. Barrow, discussing with her all aspects of his qualifications for employment as a school bus driver. One of the matters they discussed was the need for the applicant to have an appropriate place to park the bus when it was not in use. Petitioner assured her he had plenty of room to park it on the 9/10 acre grounds of the day care center his wife operated. Though Ms. Barrow claims she told Petitioner she didn't think a day care center was an appropriate place to park a school bus, it is found she made no comment to him regarding the suitability of the site he mentioned, nor did she give him any idea of whether or when he might be hired. Instead, she set up the required tests he had to take. Petitioner took and passed the required tests and was certified as qualified to drive a school bus. Several days later he spoke with Ms. Barrow who told him that they were not hiring drivers at that time, but to call back later on. Just about this same time, Mr. Gibbs also put in an application with the County's public bus system, (Heartline), and went to work there in January, 1986. He successfully completed his training program in February, 1986, and was assigned to work driving a bus, but quit before his probationary period was up because of abuse he received from his passengers and the danger of bodily harm. He was also accused of a fare impropriety but was later exonerated when the accusation against him was found to be based on a case of mistaken identity. When Mr. Gibbs left Heartline, he went to work for his wife at the child care center she operates, and still works there performing maintenance, running errands, working at the reception desk, and, periodically, driving the center's van. In May, 1986, he had another conversation with Ms. Barrow about his application for employment as a driver. Again he was advised that the county was not taking on any new school bus drivers. During the course of their conversation, Ms. Barrow asked Petitioner why he wanted to drive a school bus. Reportedly, she stated it was her experience that most men were not temperamentally suited to drive a school bus because they were over-aggressive in discipline. Ms. Barrow denies she said this, claiming that since he owned and operated a day care center, she felt he would be more likely to know what the problems were in dealing with children. If she did make that or a similar comment, however, she claims it was because the job is not for a lot of people and she tries to tell all her applicants that. In light of this and her testimony at hearing that she discusses with potential drivers the kind of behavior they can expect from the children, and the other less desirable working conditions which can be encountered, it is found that a comment such as is alleged by Petitioner could well have been made. In that regard, however, Petitioner admitted at hearing that the remark, instead of referring to "most" men, might have been "some" men. On this occasion, however, no judgement or other comment was made regarding Petitioner's proposed bus parking spot. After this second conversation with Ms. Barrow, Mr. Gibbs became suspicious of possible discrimination because of her comment about male temperament, but he had no real proof of that and did nothing. She again told him to call back in September, 1986, and when he did, he was met with the same response: they were not hiring but to call back in six months. When he did, he was again put off and told to call back at the end of the school year. This routine continued until he called in January, 1988, and spoke with Ms. Strickland, the route coordinator for another area, thinking chances of his success might be greater with another supervisor. When he identified himself and told her why he was calling, she told him that his September, 1985 application was no longer any good: employment applications were kept open only for 30 to 60 days, after which they are retired. Petitioner's application was kept on file, however, and was presented at the hearing in April, 1990. When, during discovery prior to hearing, Petitioner's counsel requested copies of all applications for driver positions from 1985 to the present, he was furnished with only those from 1989 to the present with the comment that all others were not available. Inquiry of administrative officials at the Board offices revealed such records were kept only one year before being retired and, apparently, no one could indicate where or under what conditions older documents were maintained. When Mr. Gibbs was told about his application by Ms. Strickland, feeling certain he was being discriminated against, he immediately filed his complaint of discrimination. Petitioner met, in his opinion, all the requirements to be a school bus driver. He lived in the area in which he proposed to drive; he was certified as a school bus driver; he passed all the tests given him; and, as he saw it, he had an appropriate place to park the bus. It is on this issue of an "appropriate" place to park that this matter turns. Ms. Barrow felt at the time of Petitioner's application, and believes to this day, that a child care center, with the frequency of ingress and egress traffic, and the presence of many young children, is not an appropriate place to manipulate and park a large bus. Even though she was initially mistaken as to the actual site in question, she had the correct site checked out by Mr. Saffold, her driver trainer and accident investigator, and checked it herself several times. Mr. Saffold, after numerous visits to the site, found it to be not appropriate for parking a bus due to the number of trees on the site and the other cars routinely parked there. In addition, there is a circular drive which gives little room for maneuvering. Ms. Strickland also went out to see Petitioner's site, and she, too, found it unacceptable for much the same reason cited by Mr. Saffold; the trees, the lack of maneuvering room, and the on- property traffic due to pick ups and drop offs. Ms. Barrow concluded that a day care center, with its heavy traffic of people coming and going, was not an appropriate place to park a 35 foot bus. She told Petitioner that he should find an "appropriate" parking place within a reasonable distance of his residence, such as at a church or other off-street facility. There is no central bus parking compound at Ms. Barrow's facility. There is, as Petitioner contends, ample space at the side of his facility to physically locate the bus when parked. That is not the basis for disapproval. The appropriateness of the site is, however, and the question of appropriateness is a subjective one with the decision on what qualifies and what does not left up to the route coordinator. Ms. Barrow, the coordinator for the area in which Petitioner applied, concluded the site proposed by Petitioner to park the bus was not appropriate. In this conclusion she was joined by another coordinator, Ms. Strickland, and a driver trainer and accident investigator, Mr. Saffold. In light of the evidence presented and the considerations pertaining, it cannot be said her conclusion was wrong. Within the Board's school bus operation, there are 12 route coordinators, none of whom are male, who supervise a total of in excess of 700 drivers. Within Ms. Barrow's area, she supervises 67 drivers, each of whom has between 2 and 4 daily runs. Each run is made up of 1, 2, or 3 schools. Drivers are hired, initially, as substitute drivers who fill in on an "as needed" basis for regular drivers. The substitute driver position is a part-time job which lasts for 10 instead of 12 months of the year. No set amount of working hours can be guaranteed. The average substitute driver works from 6.5 to 7.5 hours per day. Whereas regular drivers are guaranteed 6 hours work per day, substitute drivers get no guaranteed minimum and are paid only for the hours they actually drive. Substitute drivers may remain in that category for between 6 and 18 months. Regular drivers are hired from the ranks of substitute drivers. Driver criteria include a good driving record; completion of the 10th grade; and an "appropriate" place to park the bus. Board personnel consider the most critical of these to be the place to park the bus. It must be a safe, off- street location, and the problem of finding a suitable parking space is becoming more and more difficult. Of the 67 drivers under Ms. Barrow's supervision, 3 are male. During the 9 years she has served as a route coordinator, she has hired 3 or 4 male drivers. However, she gets very few male applicants and this is the basis for the low number of drivers. Ms. Strickland has 6 or 7 male drivers out of 68 full time and 11 substitute drivers. Of the applicants for drivers in her area, 3% to 4% are male. Mr. Saffold, who has worked for Ms. Barrow since March, 1981, has never found her to in any way discriminate against men. As a part of his job, he periodically goes out with the route coordinator to check on proposed parking sites for buses. On the 3 or 4 times he has done this, he has found the site to be inappropriate twice. Petitioner claims that the inappropriateness of his proposed parking site was not made an issue until after his complaint was filed. According to Mr. Saffold, it has been the continuing policy in Ms. Barrow's area to check the proposed parking site before giving the required tests to driver applicants. In the instant case, this was not done. Petitioner claims reimbursement for back pay. He filed his charge of discrimination on April 4, 1988. Any back pay due would then begin to accrue no earlier than April 3, 1986, two years prior to the filing of the charge. After being told there was no employment available for him at Respondent's Brandon bus barn, Petitioner took a job with the city bus line, Heartline, in January, 1986 and resigned in June, 1986. He earned $5.25 per hour during the entire time he was so employed. After leaving the city, he went to work at his wife's day care center where he earned $7.00 per hour and is still employed at $7.20 per hour. The job at Heartline, driving a city bus is clearly equivalent to that of driving a school bus. His duties at the day care center include periodic bus driving but is primarily of an administrative or maintenance nature and cannot reasonably be considered "substantially equivalent" to those of a school bus driver. Petitioner admits that after leaving Heartline, he did not inquire about or apply for other driving positions. Petitioner has requested attorney's fees and costs in the amounts of $22,500.00 and $1,471.85, respectively. Attorney LaPorte, testifying on behalf of Petitioner, indicated the Respondent's hourly fee of $150.00, when considered in light of his extensive experience and the considerable amount of research and preparation required herein, was not unreasonable. There was no evidence on the part of the Respondent to dispute Petitioner's claim and it is accepted as proven. The costs detailed in the exhibit attached to Respondent's post-hearing memorandum is also considered reasonable and is accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition For Relief, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 1st 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 1st day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2016 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Petitioner submitted two Proposed Recommended Orders - a long form and a short form. Both contain proposed findings of fact which are identical. The difference in Proposed Orders relates to the legal discussion which pertains to the proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings 1 - 12 related primarily to procedural matters leading up to the final hearing. Finding of Fact 13 consists of several paragraphs which, for the purposes of this discussion, shall be re-numbered 13(a) through 13(m). 13(a). Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact. The "concession" regarding liability appears to have been a part of proposed settlement negotiations and cannot be considered binding as to Findings of Fact after hearing which are based on evidence presented at the hearing. Attorney's fees are considered reasonable. 13(b). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13(c). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13(d). Accepted. 13(e). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13(f). Accepted and incorporated herein. 13 (g). Accepted and incorporated herein except for last sentence which is a restatement of evidence and not a Finding. 13 (h). Statistical information contained is accepted and incorporated herein. The balance, relating to the establishment of a prima facie case of discrimination is not a Finding of Fact, and is not supported by the evidence. 13(i) Rejected. 13(j). Accepted as to the facts but rejected as to Petitioner's conclusions as to the foundation for an adverse inference. 13(k). Accepted. 13(l). Accepted. 13(m). Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein to establish that Ms. Barrow made some comment about "some" or "most" men not being emotionally suited for drive a school bus. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Mackenzie, Esquire 17 McKendree Dr. Wesley Chapel, Florida 33544 Ronald W. Fraley Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's employment should be terminated by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the School Board was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Volusia County, Florida. Respondent, Tamika Whitaker, began working as a bus driver for the School Board in 2002. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Superintendent's Statement of Charges, Respondent was assigned to the bus route of Riverview Learning Center. In order to be employed as a school bus operator, Respondent had to undergo sixty hours of initial training, consisting of thirty-two hours of classroom training reviewing rules, policies, and procedures, and twenty-eight hours of training on the school bus. Respondent was also required to obtain a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) with a passenger endorsement. This allows the bus operator to drive a bus that is approximately 40 feet long and 10 feet wide, weighs 24,000 to 26,000 pounds unloaded, and can carry approximately 77 passengers. School bus operators are required to know and abide by all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to operating school buses, as well as all policies, practices, and procedures of the School Board. During her initial training, Respondent was provided a copy of the School Board's Student Transportation Services Procedural Manual and was trained regarding the procedures therein. Each time a change is made to the Manual, bus drivers are provided copies of the changes. In addition to her initial training, pursuant to Florida Department of Education rules, Respondent was required to complete eight hours of recertification training every year. The recertification training is designed to educate transportation staff on any new laws, rules, and regulations, and on policies, practices, and procedures of the School Board. At the March 2010 recertification training, changes to U.S. Department of Transportation's interpretation of federal regulations were discussed. Under the revised interpretation, texting while driving would be prohibited.1/ On May 4, 2010, Respondent's afternoon bus route was completed approximately 40 minutes later than usual. Because such a delay is unusual, the School Board investigated the delay pursuant to standard practices. This included review of the GPS report for the bus Respondent was driving, review of the video for the bus, and inquiry to the Student Transportation Services dispatch office. Greg Akin is the Director of Student Transportation Services for the School Board. He asked Patricia Rush, lead driver at the New Smyrna terminal, to review bus video of Respondent from her May 4, 2010, route to determine the cause for Respondent's delay. By accident, Ms. Rush watched a video from a different day, and saw actions of Respondent which Ms. Rush determined to be unsafe. Specifically, Ms. Rush described what she saw, "driving with no hands . . . driving with her elbows . . . using the cellular telephone . . . drinking out of a mug. There were students on board. I was just kind of shocked that she was doing that." Ms. Rush's concern regarding the use of the mug was that it was a large mug and appeared to Ms. Rush to block Respondent's face when she raised it to drink out of it while driving. Ms. Rush reported what she saw on the video to William Ralys, an area manager, who asked her to continue to review bus videos of Respondent and to archive what she saw. Ms. Rush reviewed the bus video of Respondent's routes on May 4, 2010, and observed Respondent pull over for a long period of time and use her cellular telephone. She also viewed the bus video of Respondent's routes on May 6, 2010, and observed Respondent using her cellular telephone while operating the bus with students on board. An internal investigation was conducted during which bus videos of several days of Respondent's routes were viewed by Mr. Akin, Assistant Director of Student Transportation Services Chip Kent, and by Mr. Ralys. Mr. Akin wrote a detailed chronology of what he observed Respondent doing while operating the school bus on April 30, 2010; May 3, 2010; and May 4, 2010. Bus video of Respondent's routes shows Respondent placing a call and talking on her cellular telephone while operating a school bus at approximately 4:00 p.m. on May 3, 2010. Respondent's cellular telephone records show she sent and received numerous text messages during her routes on that date.2/ Bus video of May 4, 2010 shows Respondent checking her cellular telephone, placing a call, and talking on the phone while operating the school bus. At approximately 3:32 p.m., the video shows Respondent talking on the phone regarding a personal matter. She told the person to whom she was speaking to "hold on, let me turn, hold on." Respondent then lowered her cellular telephone to her lap and waved out the window. Respondent then resumed her telephone conversation after turning. Also on May 4, 2010, the bus video of Respondent shows, and Respondent acknowledged, that she spent approximately 42 minutes stopped at a location, the library, which is not part of her route assignment. During this time, she again used her cell phone for talking and messaging for personal reasons. Students were not on the bus at this time, but Respondent was still "on the clock." Respondent's cellular telephone records for May 4, 2010, show that she sent and received numerous text messages while on her routes. Bus video for May 6, 2010, and her cellular telephone records, show Respondent using her cellular telephone to read and type text messages while operating the school bus with students on board, as well as to make phone calls. Bus video shows Respondent drinking from a large pink mug or container on multiple days while operating the school bus. Respondent has used this large mug for seven years and had not previously been disciplined for using it, nor had anyone told her to stop using it while driving her routes. Students on Respondent's bus were aware of her text messaging and complained to her about it. The bus video of May 6, 2010, shows Respondent holding her cellular phone in one hand while driving students. She appears to be reading incoming texts and texting while driving. She then pulls over to text message, at which time the students complain. One student said "We gotta pull over so you can text." He also said, "Oh, this is great, and "Drop me off . . . I can walk faster." Another student said to Respondent, "You can text and drive at the same time, I don't mind." The first student then offered to text message for Respondent, but she retorted, "You can't spell." Respondent presented evidence of another School Board employee, Sandra McDavid, a bus attendant, who was disciplined for not properly securing seat belts to wheel chair students and for talking on a cellular phone while operating the wheel chair lift while loading a wheel chair student. Ms. McDavid was suspended without pay for 20 days. Respondent argues that Ms. McDavid's case is similar to Respondent's, yet Respondent is receiving much harsher disciplinary action.3/ In a letter dated May 7, 2010, the Assistant Director of Student Transportation Services notified Respondent that her driving duties were temporarily suspended pending the outcome of an investigation. On June 17, 2010, Mr. Akin sent a letter to Respondent notifying her that she would be recommended for termination from employment. The letter was accompanied with the Statement of Charges signed by Superintendent Smith. At hearing, Mr. Akin noted that Respondent's case "is the first time [he] ever [saw] a case that involves this many issues on repeated days." On June 20, 2010, Respondent requested a hearing on her termination which gave rise to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Volusia County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 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.
The Issue The issue is whether First Transit, Inc. (“Escambia County Area Transit” or “ECAT”)1/ committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner (“Addie L. McMillan”) by subjecting her to disparate treatment and/or by retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Ms. McMillan is a 55-year-old, African-American female who had worked at ECAT for 22 years. She began as a part-time beach trolley operator and progressed to becoming a full-time bus driver. The Union and ECAT had a labor agreement in place between October 23, 2013, and September 30, 2016 (“the labor agreement”). Article 52 of the labor agreement had a policy regarding the use of cell phones by ECAT employees and provided as follows: While on duty the use of cellular phone or any other personal communication device is limited as follows: SECTION 1: The use by an employee of a cellular phone or any other personal communication device while behind the wheel of a transit vehicle, or any other Company motor vehicle is prohibited while the vehicle is not secured. Push to talk communication devices issued by the Company may be used for work related purposes only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law, but must be used in a manner, which would not create an unsafe situation. Note – Secured definition: Vehicle must be in neutral/park position and emergency brake on. SECTION 2: If it becomes necessary to use a cellular phone, employees must be at the end of the line/trip (on layover, if applicable) or in a safe location with the bus secure. At no time is it permissible to use a cellular phone if the use will cause the trip to be late at its next scheduled time point. SECTION 3: The use of a cellular phone or other communication device by an employee while on the shop floor or during work time (unless previously approved) is prohibited, other than a Push to Talk communication device issued by the Company for work related purposes, and only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law. Federal and State law supersede the above policy. SECTION 4: Disciplinary Action: Failure to comply with any portion of this policy may result in disciplinary action as follows: Violation of Section 2 or Section 3 of this Article: 1st offense: 3-day suspension 2nd offense: Termination Violation of Section 1 of this Article: 1st offense: Termination On June 19, 2012, Ms. McMillan signed a document entitled “Escambia County Area Transit Cellular Phone Policy” which provided that: While on duty the use of a cellular phone or any other personal communication device is limited as follows: Employees on Company Business: The use by an employee of a cellular phone or any other personal communication device while behind the wheel of a transit vehicle, or any other company motor vehicle is prohibited. Push- to-talk communication devices issued by the Company may be used for work-related purposes only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law, but must be used in a manner, which would not create an unsafe situation. If it becomes necessary to use a cellular phone, employees must be at the end of the line/trip (on layover, if applicable), request a 10-7, and exit the driver’s seat prior to using the cellular phone. At no time is it permissible to use a cellular phone if the use will cause the trip to be late at its next scheduled time point. The use of a cellular phone or other communications device by an employee while on the shop floor is prohibited, other than a Push-to-Talk communications device issued by the Company for work-related purposes, and only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law. Federal and State law supersede the above policy. On the morning of July 29, 2015, Ms. McMillan was driving a route that went through the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. At that time, the navy base had been on alert status for approximately one month. As a result, every vehicle entering the navy base had to be searched, and that caused Ms. McMillan’s bus to run behind schedule. At approximately 10:30 that morning, Ms. McMillan needed to use a bathroom and called a dispatcher via a radio provided by ECAT. The dispatcher contacted by Ms. McMillan was not receptive to her request for a bathroom break and cut off communications. Because Ms. McMillan was unsuccessful in re- establishing contact with the dispatcher over the radio, she used her personal cell phone to call a coworker, Elaine Wiggins. Ms. McMillan was hoping that Ms. Wiggins could assist her with contacting an ECAT general manager. At this point in time, the bus driven by Ms. McMillan was in traffic and moving. In other words, it was not “secured” by being in the neutral/park position with the emergency brake on. Diane Hall was an assistant general manager for ECAT during the time period at issue, and Ms. Hall talked to Ms. McMillan via Ms. Wiggins’ cell phone. Ms. Hall stated to Ms. McMillan that the route she was driving had a pre-arranged break point at a bowling alley and that Ms. McMillan could use a bathroom there. It is possible that Ms. McMillan would not have suffered any consequences for her violation of the cell phone policy but for a customer complaint provided to ECAT on July 28, 2015. Roberta Millender has been a customer service representative at ECAT for the last four years. On July 28, 2015, at 12:25 p.m., Ms. Millender received a phone call from a customer who reported that the bus driver for Route 57 left the bus at approximately 11:00 a.m. in order to smoke a cigarette, even though the bus was 25 minutes behind schedule. Ms. McMillan also drives that route. ECAT’s buses are equipped with video cameras. Therefore, ECAT reviewed the videotape from the Route 57 bus in order to investigate the complaint. Because the videotapes are on a continuous loop, ECAT had to pull video corresponding to days before and after July 28, 2015. While looking for the incident on July 28, 2015, that led to the customer complaint, an ECAT employee noticed that Ms. McMillan was using her cell phone on July 29, 2015. There is no dispute that Ms. McMillan is not the bus driver who took the cigarette break on July 28, 2015.3/ On July 30, 2015, ECAT began an investigation of Ms. McMillan’s cell phone use. ECAT notified Ms. McMillan that she would continue to work during the investigation. Via a letter dated August 3, 2015, Mike Crittenden, ECAT’s General Manager, notified Ms. McMillan that she was being terminated for violating Article 52 of the labor agreement. Mr. Crittenden’s letter deemed Ms. McMillan’s cell phone use to be a violation of section 1 which prohibited cell phone use while a transit vehicle is not secured. In addition, Mr. Crittenden’s letter noted that the termination was effective immediately. During the final hearing in this matter, Ms. McMillan was unable to present any evidence that any other similarly- situated bus drivers had not been terminated for using a cell phone while the buses they were driving were unsecured. Mr. Crittenden testified that 4 drivers have been terminated for violating section 1 of Article 52 since the labor agreement has been in place. Three of those drivers were African-American (two females and one male), and one was a Caucasian female. Mr. Crittenden was unaware of any driver being retained by ECAT after violating the cell phone policy.4/ In addition to Mr. Crittenden, Ms. McMillan called three other ECAT employees, none of whom were aware of any bus driver being retained after violating the cell phone policy. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. McMillan was not discharged because of her race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Addie L. McMillan’s Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 31th day of May, 2017.
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 just cause exists to terminate Ms. Ivey from her employment with the Pinellas County School Board.
Findings Of Fact In 2005, Ms. Ivey was hired by the School Board to work as a school bus driver (bus driver). The position of school bus driver is covered by the 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, and SEIU/Florida Public Services Union, CTW-CLC (Collective Bargaining Agreement). One of the many requirements to operate a Pinellas County school bus is to undergo a medical/physical examination every year. Among the physical requirements, bus drivers are to maintain at least 20/40 vision in each eye (with or without corrective lenses). On Wednesday, January 23, 2013, Ms. Ivey underwent her yearly physical examination (exam). As a result of this exam, Ms. Ivey's "Work Status" was "PE on hold," meaning Ms. Ivey was not able to work as a bus driver until some corrective measures involving her eyesight were obtained. Ms. Ivey completed her morning bus routes prior to her exam on January 23. After her exam, Ms. Ivey called in sick and did not complete her afternoon school bus routes. On January 24, Ms. Ivey completed both her morning and afternoon bus routes without incident. However, she took sick leave for the remainder of January 2013 (five work days). Ms. Ivey's first day back from her sick leave was February 4, 2013. Each school bus is equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) monitoring device. Once the school bus is turned on the GPS automatically records the school bus position every 30 seconds. The GPS also records other activities that the school bus performs, e.g., when the amber caution lights are turned on or off, when the red stop lights are turned on or off, when the entrance door opens or closes, etc. Because of the cost of fuel, the School Board's policy is that no school bus idles for more than five minutes. If a bus must idle for more than five minutes, the bus driver is required to turn off the bus until it needs to move. Each school bus is required to stop at each assigned bus stop whether or not a student is present. This is to maintain the published schedule for subsequent school bus riders. Each school bus is also equipped with a two-way radio for constant communication with Petitioner's transportation dispatchers. In the event of an incident (or accident), there is an additional emergency channel for use by the dispatcher and the affected school bus driver. Prior to each school year, school bus drivers are provided training in how to handle an incident (or accident). When an incident occurs, the driver is to immediately contact the transportation dispatcher, remain at the scene of the incident, ensure the safety of the students, and cooperate fully with the investigation. The bus driver is to complete an incident report and turn it in to the transportation division before the end of the incident day. The school bus that Ms. Ivey drove on February 4, 2013, was equipped with the two-way radio and the GPS. Ms. Ivey's published/authorized school bus route (for the middle school pick-up) started at 8:15 a.m. each morning when she was to pick up her riding assistant, Courtney McClendon,3/ at 102nd Avenue and Seminole Boulevard. This stop was in a large parking lot, close to a Little Caesar's restaurant (restaurant). The second bus stop, where the first student was to be picked up, was located at 97th Street North and Lake Seminole Drive East (corner location). Without the School Board's permission or authorization, Ms. Ivey unilaterally changed her school bus route to begin with the student pick-up at the corner location. On February 4, Ms. Ivey began her middle school bus route at the corner location. According to the GPS, Ms. Ivey entered the corner location neighborhood at 8:32 a.m., and could not have been at the designated corner location bus stop at 8:18 a.m. The student rider was not at the corner location when the school bus arrived. There was no indication, via the GPS, that either the amber caution or red stop lights were activated for this stop, or that the entrance door opened or closed to allow a student to enter the bus. Ms. Ivey turned the school bus onto 97th Street and stopped at the red light at 102nd Avenue (stop light corner). As Ms. Ivey was looking left (in order to turn right), she heard a knock on the school bus door, but did not see the student. Ms. Ivey completed the right-turn onto 102nd Avenue West and then, in her right rear-view mirror noticed a student falling down. Ms. Ivey did not immediately stop the school bus, but drove to the restaurant approximately two minutes away. There, Ms. Ivey turned on her amber lights and opened the door for Ms. McClendon to board the school bus. While at the restaurant, Ms. Ivey radioed Petitioner's transportation dispatcher that she might have hit a student. Ms. Ivey left the restaurant and drove back to the corner location. Despite having a two-way radio on board the school bus and repeated attempts by the dispatcher to contact her, Ms. Ivey and the dispatcher failed to communicate again for over 45 minutes. Upon notification of the incident, the transportation dispatcher switched to the emergency frequency; however, Ms. Ivey stayed on the regular two-way radio frequency. Two transportation supervisors were immediately dispatched to investigate the incident at the restaurant, as this was the location where the incident was reported. Once they arrived, the supervisors were unable to locate the school bus, Ms. Ivey, or Ms. McClendon (the trio) at or near the restaurant. In an effort to locate the trio, the supervisors traveled to several more school bus stops, but only found students waiting for the school bus.4/ After searching for over 45 minutes, the supervisors finally located the trio at the corner location. At that time the transportation supervisors determined that the stop light corner location was where the incident actually occurred. One week after the incident, on February 11, Ms. Ivey completed and turned in the "DRIVER'S REPORT OF INCIDENT." Petitioner's field operations supervisor, Ms. Cross had to make repeated requests to Ms. Ivey to get her to turn in the report. On three separate occasions, Ms. Ivey was noticed to appear at the Office of Professional Standards to answer questions regarding the January medical issue and the February 4th incident. At the meeting on February 20, 2013, Ms. Ivey refused to answer questions about either matter. During the second meeting on February 28, shortly after the meeting began, Ms. Ivey asked to use the restroom, left the room, and never returned to complete the meeting. Although she was noticed for the third meeting to begin at 7:30 a.m. on March 4, Ms. Ivey did not arrive for that meeting until after 3:00 p.m. During this third meeting, Ms. Ivey again refused to answer questions about either matter. Ms. Ivey's employment disciplinary history with the School Board is as follows: 02/08/10 Ms. Ivey received a "Conference Summary" for failing to correct performance deficiencies; 02/18/10 Ms. Ivey received a Conference Summary" for failing to comply with board policy, state law, or appropriate contractual agreement; 10/20/11 Ms. Ivey received a "Caution" for failing to comply with board policy, state law, or the appropriate contractual agreement and misconduct; 05/23/12 Ms. Ivey received a "Reprimand" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies; 12/15/12 Ms. Ivey received a "Reprimand" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies; and 02/20/13 Ms. Ivey received a "Conference Summary" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies. Despite repeated opportunities to provide her version of the events, Ms. Ivey declined to present her case in a manner that would warrant serious consideration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner terminate Ms. Ivey's employment as a school bus driver as a consequence of her repeated violations of School Board Policies 4140 A.9, A.9a., A.19., A.20., A.22., and A.24. The violation of any one of these subsections, standing alone, is sufficiently severe so as to warrant Ms. Ivey's termination from employment as a school bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 20th day of August, 2013.
