Findings Of Fact The Respondent, a public employer, has its principal place of business in Lake City, Florida, where it engages in the business of operating a school system. Respondent is created directly by the Florida state constitution or legislative body so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, and is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or to the general electorate (Stipulation.) The Respondent now and has been at all times material to these proceedings, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Public Employees Relations Act (Stipulation.) The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act (Stipulation.) Since on or about July, 1973, up to and including June 30, 1975, Jack W. Adams was a public employee within the meaning of Section 447.203(3) of the Act (Stipulation.) On or about April, 1975, and continuing thereafter, Adams engaged in employee organization-related activities designed to acquaint fellow employees of Respondent with the benefits of organizing and collective bargaining on behalf of the Charging Party (Testimony of Adams.) Adams was hired in July, 1973, by the Respondent as a Refrigeration Mechanic I in the Maintenance Department of the Columbia County school system. There was no one in this position at the time. Adams' duties were to service and maintain the refrigeration and air conditioning equipment at the various county public schools. Shortly after he was hired, he was given an apprentice, Henry Williams, to assist him in his functions. His first supervisor was Henry Stalmaker. Later, the maintenance and transportation functions were separated into different departments and Stalmaker became the Coordinator of Transportation. Ulis Taylor, who had been the "lead man" in the Maintenance Department, became the Coordinator of Maintenance in the summer of 1974. The equipment which Adams serviced had many problems when he was first hired. He improved the state of the equipment during the period that he worked under Stalmaker and the latter received no complaints during that time as to his attitude or the quality of his work (Testimony of Adams, Stalmaker.) In August, 1974, Adams talked to some Maintenance Department employees about the possibility of having a civil service system established for county employees. He received information on such a program and showed it to the employees, but found that they were not interested in pressing for the institution of such a system. In September, Dr. Frank Phillips, Superintendent of Schools, Columbia County, had a meeting with Adams at which he suspended him for two days for being involved in an incident at one of the local schools in which Adams' son allegedly had used a faculty lounge without authority while serving as a high school work-trainee with his father. The son was suspended from school as a result of this incident which allegedly involved the use of profanity by Adams and his son. Adams sought assistance from a school board member to intercede on his own suspension. The board member did so because Adams had not been afforded an opportunity to present his version of the incident. The matter was resolved after the board member discussed the situation with Phillips. Also during the September meeting, Phillips informed Adams that his discussions with employees on civil service had disturbed the school board, and told him to refrain from any further such activities (Testimony of Adams, Williams, Phillips, Markum.) On April 28, 1975, a group of school bus drivers approached Adams to become the president of the Columbia County Transportation and Maintenance Workers Association. He met with the group at the Transportation Department on that day. Authorization cards were notarized at the meeting. Taylor approached Adams and Williams thereafter and informed Adams that he should not go back to the Transportation Department for any reason and that he should keep away from association activities. He further stated that union business got people "ticked off" and upset and not to engage in it any further (Testimony of Adams, Williams). Prior to the above conversation, Taylor, on April 21, 1975, had rendered an annual employee performance evaluation on Adams wherein he rated him as "very satisfactory-substantially exceeds all requirements". This was the second highest evaluation which could be made on an employee. He also at that time recommended him for reappointment for the 1975-76 school term. Taylor's 1974 evaluation of Adams also had been in the second highest bracket with his major strength listed as "promotes unity with the Maintenance Department personnel." Although Adams had an excellent working relationship with Taylor on April 21, 1975, he and Williams testified that after the April 28th incident, Taylor started questioning everything that they did. Taylor, on the other hand, testified that, although the 1974 performance evaluation was basically accurate, he had experienced problems with Adams' attitude and gave him an inflated evaluation on April 21st, hoping that it would influence him to improve and have better relationships within the Department. However, at that time; he was of the opinion that Adams' work performance was perfectly satisfactory. Shortly after that, he sent Adams to an elementary school to repair a freezer. Although Williams worked on the unit, Adams concurred in his judgment as to the problem which later proved to be incorrect. Taylor was of the opinion that they had lied to him concerning the work required, although the evidence supports a finding that they were merely mistaken. The evidence, however, also supports a finding that there had been a number of problems with refrigeration units during the 1975 spring term that were due, in some respect, to an inefficient method of ordering parts by others and also because many compressors had to be replaced. About four years previously, the school system had purchased a rather large amount of refrigeration equipment. These same problems had been in existence prior to Adams' tenure with the school system (Testimony of Taylor, Adams, Williams, Watts; Exhibit 5 & 6.) On May 8, 1975, Taylor wrote to Phillips recommending that the Refrigeration Department be reduced to one man, a Refrigeration Mechanic II (a lower grade than mechanic I), with major problems to be handled by utilization of local contractors. The letter pointed out the difficulties that had been encountered and expressed dissatisfaction with the attitude and competence of the Refrigeration Mechanic I (Adams). In effect, this letter reversed Taylor's prior recommendation that Adams be rehired for the ensuing school year (Exhibit 4.) On or about May 12, 1975, Williams, who was assisting Adams in employee organization work, talked to the president of the secretaries association of the school system at her house concerning the subject of organization. He could not answer all of her questions and it was arranged that Adams would meet with the secretaries the following day. He did so in the school library at 4:15 p.m. after working hours. The next day it was reported to the executive secretary for the school board that Adams had told the group they would have difficulties in securing job benefits unless they were organized. She believed this information was erroneous and had Adams call her on the telephone. He declined to discuss the subject during working hours. Phillips had planned to have a meeting with Taylor and Adams that morning at 9:45 a.m. When he came into the office, the executive secretary told him of her discussion with Adams and he told her that he had had complaints in the Maintenance Department and was going out there to see what the problem was. He was concerned that the maintenance personnel were playing "catch-up" rather than preventing maintenance problems from arising in the first place. These problems had occurred in all areas of the Maintenance Department, including refrigeration work. At the meeting that morning, Phillips informed Taylor that he was suspended because of maintenance complaints, Williams was suspended for incompetence and Adams because of committing an unfair labor practice for allegedly speaking to the secretarial group on school time. At this time, Phillips told Adams that the School Board was not ready for collective bargaining that year, but maybe the next year. Adams informed him that he would continue to engage in employee organization, and Phillips stated that "Well, if you don't cease, you and all personnel involved in this association will all be fired and we will hire new personnel." In spite of Phillips' statements concerning suspension, he informed the employees that he would let them know by that Friday what he was going to do in regard to their status. He did not pursue the question of suspension any further and, as a result, Adams filed an unfair labor practice charge against the school board on May 20, 1975 (Testimony of Adams, Mock, Williams, Wilson, Taylor, Phillips.) Respondent's method of extending the employment of non- instructional personnel was for the superintendent to confer with the department head and, if he concurred in the department head's recommendation as to an employee, the matter would be presented to the Board of Public Instruction for approval. No contracts were involved for such employees, but Respondent operated normally on a school year basis from July 1 to June 30 as the term of employment. Phillips testified that, in May of 1975, he was reevaluating the need for support personnel and decided to look into the possibility of procuring services by contract with commercial firms. He was particularly unsatisfied with the Maintenance Department and disruptions that had occurred therein. He dispatched a letter on May 23 to Adams advising him that his name did not appear on the list of recommendations for reappointment at that time, but that he might be recommended at a later date should a position become available in his field. Since Phillips had until June 30th to make final decisions concerning rehiring of personnel, he investigated and determined that contract services were not feasible and therefore decided to stay with an "in-house" maintenance program. However, in view of the May 8th letter from Taylor concerning Adams, and the problems in refrigeration that had been occurring in the Spring, he recommended to the Board of Education that Adams not be continued as an employee. Nine of the eleven employees in the Maintenance Department received the same letter from Phillips, but Adams was the only one of that group who was not rehired. Adams never received anything further in writing on the matter and was not shown Taylor's letter of May 8 at that time (Testimony of Phillips, Adams, Exhibit 3.) Although the Board did not have a formal system for grievances or appeal of dismissals, Adams was accorded a hearing before the Board on July 10. This was prompted by his discussion with a school board member who showed him Taylor's May 8 letter for the first time and advised him to ask for a hearing before the Board. At the hearing, Adams was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in Taylor's letter except as to Item 10 concerning work orders of which he had no knowledge. The hearing was then continued until July 24th in order to provide Adams more time for his defense. During this period, he secured letters attesting to his good work and cooperative attitude from nine principals of various schools in Columbia County. At the July 24th board meeting, Adams was confronted with a July 21st revision of Taylor's May 8th letter that was rewritten in order to eliminate "inconsistencies" which had appeared in the June 8th letter. The later letter added an allegation that Adams had gone into the Maintenance Department personnel files without Taylor's permission while Taylor was on vacation. This allegation stemmed from an incident in early June when Adams and Williams went into an open file cabinet in the Maintenance Department that was used to store secondary personnel files as well as work orders and manuals, and extracted a copy of their latest evaluation reports. Although they did not seek authorization for this, they informed the acting supervisor that they had obtained what they had gone in for. (Testimony of Adams, Williams, Murdock; Exhibit 3, Composite Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8.) Adams was given an opportunity to present matters at the July 24th Board meeting and the Board voted to support the superintendent's recommendation that he not be rehired. Subsequent to Adams' dismissal, Williams had taken his place for a short period of time and thereafter a new man was hired. Problems with refrigeration equipment have been minimal during the past year, it having been discovered that the wrong type of gas had been used in replacement compressors in the past (Testimony of Taylor, Watts, Williams, Martin.) Respondent has drawn unemployment insurance of $82.00 a week since October 1, 1975. Although he registered with the Florida State Employment Service for a position as a commercial air conditioner and refrigeration mechanic, there have been no jobs of that nature offered to him in the area where he resides (Testimony of Adams.)
Recommendation That the Public Employees Relations Commission issue an order requiring the Columbia County Board of Public Instruction to cease and desist from unfair labor practices as defined in Section 447.501(1)(a) & (b), Florida Statutes, with respect to the Columbia County Transportation and Maintenance Workers Association, and to take prompt action to reinstate Jack W. Adams as a Refrigerator Mechanic I with back pay from July 1, 1975 to date of reinstatement, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, less amounts the aforesaid individual has received from state governmental sources during the stated period. Done and Entered this 7th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire 2003 Apalachee Parkway Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry McDavid, Esquire Box 1328 Lake City, Florida =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents have committed an unlawful employment practice by retaliating against Petitioner for Petitioner's earlier complaint of handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been disabled since 1981, when she suffered a stroke. Petitioner was employed by Respondent Palm Beach County on September 10, 1984, as a receptionist in its Public Safety Department. Richard Walesky is the director of Palm Beach County's Department of Environmental Resources Management. The County started that Department in October of 1987, and Walesky became the Department's first director and first employee. That Department has expanded substantially since its creation, having grown to approximately 30 employees after the first year and approximately 100 employees currently. In January of 1988, Walesky hired Petitioner as a fiscal clerk in the Department of Environmental Resources Management. Petitioner was in a wheelchair at the time, and Walesky was aware that the Petitioner was handicapped. He hired her because she was qualified by experience and because she had an "upbeat" personality. Her job description included receptionist duties and answering telephones, purchasing, general bookkeeping, and reconciliation of the Department's books and records. The only accommodation requested by Petitioner was to have a rolling file cabinet on the right-hand side of her work station. With her filing cabinet in that location and her electric wheelchair, she needed no other accommodation. Initially, Walesky supervised Petitioner but turned that responsibility over to the Department's office manager in approximately 1989. In that same year, Petitioner's title changed from fiscal clerk to fiscal specialist. Initially, Walesky was not knowledgeable about fiscal procedures and therefore could not assess Petitioner's performance level. In other words, he did not know if the problems he was experiencing were normal. He did know that Petitioner was not reconciling the books as required and, therefore, neither of them knew how much of their budget had been spent and how much was still available. Further, due to the slow processing of paperwork in his Department, the County was not able to take advantage of discounts for timely payment of bills. In one year, the slow processing of paperwork by Petitioner resulted in approximately $20,000 worth of bills not being paid during the fiscal year when the money for payment was budgeted but rather being paid during the following fiscal year when money had not been budgeted to pay for those items. Reconciling the Department's books and processing the paperwork for payment of invoices were included in Petitioner's assigned duties. In spite of the seriousness of those deficiencies, Walesky and the office manager who subsequently supervised Petitioner did not give Petitioner negative annual performance evaluations. Rather, on her 1988 performance evaluation Petitioner was rated as meeting or partially exceeding job requirements, and the same rating was given to Petitioner in 1989. Petitioner's 1990 annual performance evaluation resulted in her achieving a superior rating. As the Department continued to grow, Walesky hired more staff. In October of 1990, he hired Laura Thompson as a Financial Analyst II. Thompson, who had a master's degree in financial management, was given the responsibility of general oversight of the financial aspects of the Department. That responsibility included being Petitioner's supervisor. During Thompson's first year of employment, Petitioner retained her same responsibility for purchasing and processing of invoices, and Thompson was primarily responsible for other areas. During her first year, Thompson had limited knowledge of Petitioner's work and gave Petitioner a superior rating on Petitioner's 1990-1991 performance evaluation. Yet, Thompson was aware that there were problems in Petitioner's performance. Thompson requested during her second year of employment that Walesky put her directly in charge of purchasing so she could become more familiar with the purchasing system and better deal with the problems surrounding Petitioner's job duties. Walesky agreed with that request and did so. During that year, Thompson was better able to identify Petitioner's deficiencies. At the end of that fiscal year, in September of 1992, Thompson gave Petitioner the same superior rating but in the comments section of that evaluation, Thompson specified the areas in which Petitioner needed to show improvement. Thompson discussed with her Petitioner's annual performance evaluation, with specific attention to each item noted as needing improvement. She told Petitioner to organize Petitioner's work area by labeling file cabinets and file folders, by removing from her work area paperwork which was three or four years old and placing those documents in properly marked file folders, and by placing active paperwork on her desk rather than keeping active work in her desk drawers. As to the second area needing improvement, Thompson told Petitioner to eliminate duplicate records. It had been earlier discovered that Petitioner was keeping duplicate records, that is, she was keeping her own ledgers which duplicated the County's ledgers being done by the automated system. Not only were duplicate records not needed, they were not permitted since there was a County policy that for a Department to keep duplicate records, permission must be obtained from the Budget Office, and the Department did not have that permission. Further, Thompson believed that Petitioner keeping her own ledgers consumed approximately one half of Petitioner's work time. The third area of concern was that Petitioner had not received training in the County's automated accounting and purchasing system. Knowledge of that Local Government Financial System a/k/a LGFS was imperative for an employee in Petitioner's position. Training in LGFS was available to Petitioner during working hours at her job site at the County's expense, and Thompson specifically told Petitioner that it was. Thompson offered Petitioner assistance in meeting the outlined goals in those three areas needing improvement. However, Petitioner did not need any assistance according to Petitioner. Thereafter, there was no improvement in any of those specified areas. Petitioner did, however, request that her position as a fiscal specialist be upgraded. Walesky, who had been engaging in ongoing discussions with Thompson regarding Petitioner's performance problems and Petitioner's resistance to improvement in the specified areas, referred that request for re-classification to the County's Personnel Department. He and Thompson specifically did not give any recommendation to the Personnel Department as to whether Petitioner's request should be approved or denied. The Personnel Department conducted an independent audit and determined that although Petitioner's work load had increased, her job duties had remained the same and there was no basis for re- classifying her position. Petitioner's request was denied on November 6, 1992. Due to Petitioner's failure to make the required changes in the areas specified, Thompson gave Petitioner a memorandum in December of 1992 since the numerous discussions she had had with Petitioner along the way had not been effective. That memorandum directed Petitioner to follow the Policies and Procedures Memorandum regarding the price agreements. She attached to her memorandum a copy of the referenced Memorandum. Thompson discussed with Petitioner the memorandum she issued and offered her assistance, but Petitioner did not request any assistance in carrying out the instructions contained in Thompson's memorandum to her. Thereafter, Thompson noted no improvement and issued a memorandum dated January 26, 1993, specifying problems noted by Thompson and specifying assignments given to Petitioner which Petitioner had not accomplished. The memorandum requested that Petitioner advise Thompson if there were any reasons that Petitioner could not accomplish the tasks, offered assistance in helping Petitioner attain the goals, and advised Petitioner that if she continued to fail to respond to those areas of improvement required of her, she would be issued a formal notice of reprimand for failure to perform assigned duties and/or to follow directions. Thereafter, Petitioner did not demonstrate any particular effort to make improvements in the designated areas. Her work area remained cluttered, she continued maintaining duplicate books, and she failed to obtain the required LGFS training. Thompson continued to keep Walesky advised as to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate improvement and to comply with directives. Thompson also contacted the County's Personnel Department regarding Petitioner's performance to discuss her options and the appropriate procedures. In May of 1993, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that she had been discriminated against based upon her handicap by the County's failure to re-classify her position. A determination was made on that complaint that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred, and Petitioner did not contest that determination. When Petitioner filed her complaint in May of 1993, the Commission sent notice to the County that a complaint had been filed, although a copy of the complaint itself was not forwarded to the County until July of 1993. When the notice was received by the County in May, it was forwarded to the County's Personnel Department in accordance with County policy. Walesky was advised that the notice had been received, and he immediately went to Petitioner and asked her what the problem was and what he could do to solve it. Petitioner advised Walesky that the problem was the failure to re-classify her position months earlier. Laura Thompson, however, was not advised by anyone that Petitioner had filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. She did not become aware of that complaint until the actual complaint was received by the County from the Commission in July of 1993. Thompson found out about both the existence of the complaint and the contents of the complaint in July when the County's Personnel Department requested her to respond to it. On June 8, 1993, Thompson gave Petitioner a written reprimand. That reprimand was reviewed in advance by the Personnel Department and by Walesky, who signed it without any consideration that Petitioner had filed a discrimination complaint. At the meeting wherein Petitioner was given the reprimand, Richard Morelli, the Department's office manager and Petitioner's former supervisor, was present at Thompson's request. The reprimand was for failure to perform assigned duties and to follow instructions. Thompson discussed the reprimand with Petitioner and then requested that Petitioner sign it. Petitioner did so and left it on Thompson's desk. Thompson saw that Petitioner had written on the reprimand, "I believe this is retaliation". Thompson went to Petitioner and asked Petitioner what she meant by her comment. Petitioner's response to Thompson was that Petitioner did not have to tell her, and she did not tell her. Subsequent to the issuance of the reprimand, Petitioner exhibited no significant improvement in her performance. Petitioner's work area did become more organized because Thompson personally organized Petitioner's files for her and cleaned out approximately 50 percent of Petitioner's work area. Thompson continued to discuss with Petitioner her directive that Petitioner eliminate the duplicate records Petitioner was keeping. At one point, she asked Petitioner to describe to Thompson what books she was keeping and the purpose for each specific book. Petitioner advised Thompson that she did not have time to tell her that information. Thompson instructed Petitioner that for the remaining four hours of that work day and for the entire following work day Petitioner was to do nothing else during that 12-hour time slot except prepare a description of the books she was keeping. During that 12 hours Petitioner worked on other tasks and failed to do the one task she had been instructed to do to the exclusion of all others. In September of 1993, Petitioner received an annual performance evaluation with a rating of "needs improvement". The evaluation was discussed with Petitioner by Thompson, and Petitioner recognized the importance of reaching a satisfactory level of performance to keep her job. Petitioner was given a 90-day improvement plan, with meetings scheduled with Thompson and Walesky at the 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervals. During that time period, Petitioner accepted none of the offers for extra assistance. At the end of the 90-day improvement plan, Petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient progress to reach a satisfactory level of performance. For example, she still had not obtained the LGFS training she was directed to obtain. At the end of the 90-day period Petitioner was terminated from her employment with the concurrence of Walesky, Thompson, and the County's Personnel Department. Yet, Petitioner was given an additional 30-days of paid leave time in which to obtain another job. None of the other positions located for Petitioner by the County were satisfactory to her, including the position she had held before being hired by Walesky. The County's Personnel Department employs an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action specialist, who is responsible for handling all discrimination complaints and for training managers in equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements. Shauna Ihle was hired by the County for that position in March of 1990. She met Petitioner immediately after being employed when Petitioner came to see her regarding different available positions that Petitioner was applying for or to request assistance. She received the May 1993 notice that Petitioner had filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Relations. From the time that Petitioner's request for re-classification of her position was denied on November 6, 1992, until Petitioner filed her complaint on approximately May 3, 1993, Petitioner had never discussed with Ihle any dissatisfaction or perceived discrimination regarding the County's denial of that request for re-classification. When Petitioner received her "needs improvement" performance evaluation in September of 1993, Petitioner came to Ihle to discuss that evaluation. Although Petitioner stated that the evaluation was not appropriate, as to each specific item in the evaluation Petitioner admitted to Ihle that the complaint was legitimate. Petitioner even admitted that she agreed with the reprimand that had been given to her because she was not processing paperwork correctly or following the correct procedures. Petitioner also told Ihle that some of the things Thompson wanted her to do were stupid, and Ihle advised Petitioner that she should do those things anyway. Throughout the time that Ihle counseled with Petitioner, she inquired if Petitioner had any limitations preventing her from performing her duties or if she needed any help to perform her duties. Petitioner's position was that she did not need any help and had no limitations which interfered with her job performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondents have not committed an unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed against them. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 24th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 10-12, and 16 are adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6-9, 13-15, and 17- 21 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-30, and 32-41 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 31 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne P. D'Iorio, Esquire 5301 North Federal Highway, Suite 150 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Maureen E. Cullen, Esquire County Attorney's Office of Palm Beach County 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the Respondent's professional services employment contract should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated October 1, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated October 25, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the Miami-Dade County school district and to provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (2001). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Stern was employed as a teacher with the School Board under a professional services contract. Ms. Stern is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), and the terms of her employment with the School Board are governed by the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Ms. Stern first received her teaching certificate in 1952, and she began teaching in the Miami-Dade County public school system in 1987. The 2000-2001 school year was her first year teaching at Campbell Drive Elementary, and she was assigned to teach a regular second grade class. Campbell Drive Elementary was rated a "D" level school at the times material to this proceeding. Teacher Assessment and Development System. The Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") had, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, been used in the Miami- Dade County public school system for 15 years to evaluate teachers employed by the School Board. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation ("Joint Committee") decided in 1996 that TADS should be replaced with a new evaluation system.2 As a result, the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES") was developed and has been in use in the Miami-Dade County public school system since the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. As will be discussed in more detail below, the observations and evaluations at issue herein were all performed using TADS. TADS is a performance-based evaluation instrument, which includes sixty-eight specific teacher behaviors that should be performed in the classroom. The TADS evaluation procedures set forth in the UTD Contract and established by the Joint Committee required that formal Classroom Assessment observations be performed, that any observed performance deficiencies be noted, and that professional growth opportunities be provided to teachers with noted deficiencies. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period for teachers with professional service contracts. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed by representatives of the Miami-Dade County public school system and the UTD to implement procedures for the new system. Pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Memorandum of Understanding, the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period is commenced the day after a conference-for- the-record is held with the teacher to advise him or her of classroom performance deficiencies. At least two observations must be conducted during the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, and the teacher must be provided assistance through prescription plan activities and through referrals to resource persons for further assistance. At the conclusion of the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, a confirmatory observation is conducted to determine if the performance deficiencies have been corrected. Prescription plan activities have the status of administrative directives.3 The principal of Campbell Drive Elementary at the times pertinent to these proceedings was Betty Thomas, and the assistant principal was Claudia Brown. Both were trained to observe and evaluate teachers using TADS. Ms. Stern was first observed at Campbell Drive Elementary on October 10, 2001, by Ms. Brown. Ms. Stern received an overall acceptable rating on the CAI (Classroom Assessment Instrument) Post-Observation Report, as well as acceptable ratings on each of the six TADS rating categories. February 5, 2001, observation. Ms. Thomas conducted her first formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on February 5, 2002,4 when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade math class from 12:30 p.m. until 1:35 p.m. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, during the observation, instructional time was lost while Ms. Stern sharpened pencils for several students and wandered around the room without giving instruction to the students and that instructional time was lost when Ms. Stern told the students to put their heads on their desks approximately minutes before they were to leave the classroom for Spanish and Physical Education classes. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off-task and behaving inappropriately. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored or failed to respond when two students yelled at one another during a test, when students talked and played with pencils during a lesson, when two students left the room and returned, when two students hit one another, and when a student crawled on the floor. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, when virtually everyone in the class was talking, Ms. Stern asked those students who were talking to raise their hands; Ms. Stern praised the students who raised their hands for their honesty but did nothing to cause the students to stop talking. Ms. Thomas also noted several instances in which Ms. Stern responded to students with remarks that were either ineffectual or not to the point. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with clear expectations regarding appropriate behavior. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that no class rules were posted in the classroom and that Ms. Stern did not refer to any class rules. Ms. Thomas also noted that, while students were being sent to the board to work math problems, 75 percent of the students in the class were talking and several students were wandering around the room, all without correction from Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to respond quickly or appropriately to students who acted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not respond, and actually ignored, most of the students' inappropriate behaviors, which included a student dancing around the back of the room, students laughing and playing with a hat, students loudly asking how to do the assignment, and students yelling to one another. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.G.3. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to emphasize potential areas of difficulty, specifically with respect to the math problems involving "regrouping," by either verbal or non-verbal clues. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern failed to assist a student who had difficulty with a math problem at the board.5 Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.H.1. and 2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify areas of potential confusion or to clarify areas of confusion after it became obvious that the students did not understand the assigned math problems involving "regrouping." Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern wrote problems on the board and directed the students to solve them without providing any explanation. When several students asked Ms. Stern how to do the problems, she told them she would go over it later, but she did not do so during the math lesson. It was Ms. Thomas's general impression during her February 5, 2002, observation, that Ms. Stern was unable to manage the students in her class. There were many disruptions in the classroom that distracted the students and made it difficult for them to learn. Ms. Thomas estimates that approximately 90 percent of the students in the class were off-task at some point during the observation. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Thomas held a Conference- for-the-Record with Ms. Stern.6 Also present at the conference were Ms. Brown, as well as Ms. Marcos and Ms. Rolle, Ms. Stern's union representatives. During the conference, Ms. Thomas discussed the February 5, 2001, observation with Ms. Stern, and they discussed the prescription plan activities that Ms. Thomas had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by March 15, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. The Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription dated February 20, 2001, reflects that Ms. Stern was advised during the conference that her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period would commence the day after the conference, on February 21, 2001. Ms. Stern was also advised by Ms. Thomas that, after the conclusion of the probation period, she would determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the cited deficiencies during the probation period and would make a recommendation to the Superintendent at the conclusion of the probation period that could lead to the termination of Ms. Stern's employment. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report, the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, and the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription, thereby indicating that she had seen and received a copy of these documents. Ms. Stern completed approximately 80 percent of the prescription plan activities in the February 5, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement by the March 15, 2001, deadline. March 16, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown, the assistant principal at Campbell Drive Elementary, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on March 16, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 10:45 a.m. Ms. Brown's impression was that Ms. Stern was agitated and angry that day and was unable to control the class or to teach adequately. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. The TADS Monitoring Committee reviewed the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and gave Ms. Stern credit for indicators IV.F.1., 2., and 3.; this change resulted in Ms. Stern's being rated acceptable in the category of Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.A.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to include in her lesson plan assessment tools, homework, materials, and most of the lesson's objectives and activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to prepare content and instructional activities to fill the allotted classroom time. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although the language arts block of instruction was scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Ms. Stern instructed the students to put their heads on their desks at 10:40 a.m., terminating the language arts instruction. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, throughout the observation period, Ms. Stern allowed unnecessary delays during instruction and transitions. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern spent approximately 20 minutes of the language arts period making comments to the students about the quality of their work and attempting to get their attention. As reported by Ms. Brown: The teacher called out one comment and direction after the other, such as "I don't hear anything from table 4. excuse me, I just said your tables not talking. you did a beautiful job. thank you, Yrline, did you hear me?" "Salami, one, two, three, four. Now take your paper . . . everybody's eyes up here! Salami! Denise, table 1, your eyes up here, table 1, 2, 3, 4. Take your paper . . . Christian, Okoya, Desiree, Stanley, take your paper . . . excuse me." "Salame" is an acronym for "Stop and look at me," and its use is recommended as a technique for quieting students. Ms. Stern did not apply the technique correctly, however, because she talked very quickly and did not wait to give the students a chance to quiet down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that students were talking and calling out to one another, making noises, and getting out of their seats while Ms. Stern read a story. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, then accepted answers from students who had not raised their hands, and failed to correct a student who was out of his seat and sitting with a student who had been separated from the group for being disruptive. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that a student that Ms. Stern had separated from the class for being disruptive was allowed to spend 20 minutes building a house with word cards; that a student spent 15 minutes with his chin on his desk doing nothing without Ms. Stern's redirecting him, and, although she said she would return to help him, she did not do so; and that, in several instances, Ms. Stern either failed to correct students who were behaving inappropriately or ignored students when they failed to respond to her directions. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands to answer questions, she accepted answers called out by students who did not raise their hands and failed to call on students who had raised their hands; that Ms. Stern re-enforced inappropriate behavior by telling a student that he was doing well when he was not working but was turned around in his seat talking to a student behind him; and that, although class rules were posted in the classroom, Ms. Stern did not refer to them. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to identify and deal quickly and appropriately with students who interacted with others inappropriately and interfered with the work of others. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern either did not notice, or ignored, students' inappropriate behavior, which included a student doing work in another student's phonetic workbook; students talking and making noises while Ms. Stern was talking or reading; students laughing at another student, who had been sent to the corner and responded to Ms. Stern's direction to get up by standing up and turning around and around. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern did not state the consequences for students who were continuously told to stop calling out or were continuously told to sit down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.F.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, as noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to refer back to the objective of the lesson, to relate one part of the lesson to other parts of the lesson, and to summarize the lesson and apply it to past or future lessons.7 A conference was held on March 23, 2001, with Ms. Stern, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Brown in attendance. No written summary of the conference was prepared, but Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report and the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement on March 23, 2001, acknowledging that she had seen and received a copy of the documents. At the March 23, 2001, conference, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern discussed the results of the March 16, 2001, observation and the prescription plan activities that Ms. Brown had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, as well as the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by April 20, 2001. The April 20, 2001, deadline was extended until May 18, 2001, because of Ms. Stern's absences, as discussed below. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. May 17, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, and directed to Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Thomas requested that Dr. O'Donnell take control of the "re-entry" of Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas asked for Dr. O'Donnell's intervention because Ms. Stern had been absent a total of 22 personal and sick days and because Ms. Stern was on 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation. As a result of Ms. Thomas's request, Dr. O'Donnell sent a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, to Ms. Stern telling her that she needed to contact the Office of Professional Standards before she returned to work so that a clearance conference could be scheduled. The clearance conference was held on May 16, 2001, at the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Thomas, Clemencia Waddell, Director of Region VI, and Dia Falco, Ms. Stern's UTD representative, attended the conference. As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, the purpose of the conference was to address Ms. Stern's performance assessments, her attendance, and her medical fitness to perform her duties and to review Ms. Stern's record and her future employment status with the Miami-Dade County public school system. As of May 15, 2001, Ms. Stern had used more sick time than she had accrued, and Dr. O'Donnell advised her that her absences, which consisted of 21.5 sick and personal days and 1/2 days of unauthorized leave without pay, were considered excessive. Ms. Stern's performance evaluations were also discussed at the conference, and it was noted that she had been provided prescription plan activities to assist her in correcting the deficiencies identified in the March 16, 2001, observation report, which activities were to have been completed by April 20, 2001. Ms. Stern had not provided the required materials to Ms. Thomas or Ms. Brown, but, because she was absent beginning on April 18, 2001, Ms. Stern was directed to provide all of the required materials for the prescription plan activities to Ms. Thomas by the end of the workday on May 18, 2001. Ms. Stern was advised that the failure to provide these materials within the time specified would be considered a deficiency in Category VII, which is the Professional Responsibilities category of TADS, and that she would be placed on a Category VII prescription. Several directives were included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, and Ms. Stern was advised that she was cleared to return to work on May 17, 2001. May 22, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on May 22, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Ms. Brown's overall impression was that Ms. Stern 's performance was worse than it was during the observation on March 16, 2001. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Teacher-Student Relationships and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern had failed to plan content and instructional activities to fill the classroom time allotted for the language arts block. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern took the students to the library at 10:30 a.m., but had completed her planned classroom activities at 9:55 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information in a meaningful or orderly manner. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that "[t]he sequence of the ideas did not flow into one another. The teacher asked questions and talked about whatever came to her mind, . . ." Ms. Brown also noted that there was no logical sequence of activities or framework established for the activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students the most important topics in the lesson or various applications of the topics introduced in the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students what they would be doing and did not relate the lesson to the students' experiences. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information using analysis or comparisons. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not ask open-ended questions, that she limited her questions to those that were simple and basic, and that she failed to challenge the students beyond one cognitive level. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern wasted 12 minutes of instruction time because of delays attributable to her repeatedly consulting her lesson plan during class and failing to use student helpers to pass out papers to the class, causing the students to wait without instruction until she passed out all of the papers. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice or noticed but chose not to re-direct a student who was making a paper airplane and rearranging his desk and the inside of his book bag for a period of 15 minutes and that Ms. Stern did not speak to a student who, for a period of 10 minutes, sat with her knees to her chest. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern thanked two students for no apparent reason. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice for two minutes that a student had slid his chair halfway across the room to place it beside that of another student and that, when she noticed, she merely told the student to sit down. Ms. Brown also noted that a student fell asleep at 9:45 a.m.; after about 10 minutes, Ms. Stern noticed the student, asked if he had stayed up late the night before, and left him to sleep until he awoke at 10:25 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern told the students that she "love[d] the way everyone is talking at once but it doesn't help" and that Ms. Stern continued to accept answers from students who called out, accepting more answers from these students than from the students who raised their hands. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with appropriate and correct verbal feedback regarding specific behaviors. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored two students who had their hands up for several minutes and accepted answers called out by other students. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern praised the class for working well together when the activity was an activity that each student worked on alone. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to give the students necessary background about their activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students the ideas or skills they were to learn from the two stories that she read to them, one about a bear with a toothache and one about an octopus; she merely told the students that she was going to read a book. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students how each activity related to the other activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not emphasize the important topics in the two stories or link the topics in the stories to future activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to sequence activities and failed to point out any logic to the order in which she presented components of the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern went from one activity to the next without having an apparent goal or order to the lesson. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide closure to the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not summarize, recapitulate, or apply any of the concepts in the lesson to any past or future lessons. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify the students' confusion. Ms. Brown relates in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern asked a student a question about an octopus; when the student answered, "The end of one of the octopus' tails is the mouth," Ms. Stern's only response was "OK. I don’t quite understand but OK." Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern passed out word cards to the students but never told them what to do with the cards. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.4. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to answer quietly the questions of individual students but would address the entire class when answering the questions of one or two students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern interrupted the entire class several times to answer the questions of two students, with the result that the class did not have enough quiet time to read and complete the activity. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on May 23, 2001, which was attended by Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern.8 During the conference, the deficiencies noted by Ms. Brown during her observation on May 22, 2001, were discussed, as well as the prescription plan activities that Ms. Stern was to complete to assist her in correcting the deficiencies. The timeline for completion of the prescription plan activities was also discussed, and it was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all the prescription plan activities by June 13, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers who were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. Ms. Stern's failure to complete the prescription plan activities included in the March 16, 2001, observation by the May 18, 2001, deadline was also discussed at the May 23, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. The Summary of the Conference-for- the-Record reflects that Ms. Brown went over with Ms. Stern the prescription plan activities that were not completed. As a result of her failure to complete the prescription plan activities, Ms. Thomas placed Ms. Stern on prescription for Category VII, the TADS Professional Responsibilities category. Ms. Stern had been advised at the May 17, 2001, Conference-for- the-Record at the Office of Professional Standards that a Category VII prescription would be the consequence if she failed to complete the prescription plan activities by the May 18, 2001, deadline. Ms. Stern ultimately completed the prescription plan activities in the March 16, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, although Ms. Brown had a difficult time determining that Ms. Stern completed all of the activities because the materials she submitted to Ms. Brown were very disorganized. Ms. Stern also turned in by the June 13, 2001, deadline all of the written materials required in the prescription plan activities assigned as a result of the May 22, 2001, observation. She did not, however, turn in her weekly lesson plans to Ms. Brown prior to implementing them, as she had been instructed; rather, she turned in her lesson plans late, and, near the end of the 2000-2001 school year, she did not turn in any lesson plans. September 13, 2001, Confirmatory Observation. In a letter to Ms. Stern dated April 26, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged having received a request for medical leave from Ms. Stern for the period extending from April 18, 2001, through May 4, 2001. In the letter, Dr. O'Donnell clarified for Ms. Stern the School Board's position with respect to the impact of her absences on the calculation of the days remaining in her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Dr. O'Donnell confirmed in the letter that Ms. Stern's probation period began on February 21, 2001, and that the prescription plan activities arising out of the March 16, 2001, observation were due to be completed on April 20, 2001. Dr. O'Donnell further advised Ms. Stern that the first 10 days of absence were included in the calculation of the 90 calendar days of the probation period and that, accordingly, the end of her probation period would be extended from May 31, 2001, to June 6, 2001, both of which dates fell within the final 10 days of the school year. Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged in the April 26, 2001, letter that, normally, no observations were performed during the first and final 10 days of a school year, but she advised Ms. Stern that her 90-day probation period must be concluded by June 16, 2001, because the Miami-Dade County public school system was to change from TADS to PACES for teacher performance evaluations, effective at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. Accordingly, Dr. O'Donnell put Ms. Stern on notice in the April 26, 2001, letter that her confirmatory observation would take place after her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period ended on June 6, 2001. In a letter dated May 9, 2001, Ms. Falco, on behalf of the UTD, advised Dr. O'Donnell that, first, she had misstated the rule regarding the treatment of absences. According to Ms. Falco, the UTD Contract provided that the first 10 days of absence were not to be counted in calculating the 90 days. Nonetheless, Dr. O'Donnell's calculation of June 6, 2001, as the last day of Ms. Stern's probation period was correct. Ms. Falco also took issue with Dr. O'Donnell's decision to complete Ms. Stern's probationary period on June 16, 2001, and she advised Dr. O'Donnell that the then-current observation procedures prohibited any formal observations during the first and final 10 days of the school year and that the UTD would appeal any formal observation of Ms. Stern conducted during the final 10 days of the 2000-2001 school year. Finally, Ms. Falco advised Dr. O'Donnell that the Joint Committee had not yet determined how to treat teachers whose probation periods carried over into the 2001-2002 school year, when teachers were to be evaluated under PACES. The Joint Committee considered Ms. Stern's case individually and decided that Ms. Stern's confirmatory observation was to be conducted using TADS rather than PACES. Ms. Stern was not disadvantaged by having this observation conducted under TADS because it is easier for a teacher to get an acceptable evaluation under TADS than under PACES. In accordance with the position taken by the UTD and because Ms. Stern could not be observed during the first 10 days of the 2001-2002 school year, the end of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period was finally determined to be September 10, 2001. On September 13, 2001, Ms. Thomas conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance when she observed Ms. Stern teach a second grade math class from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This observation was the required confirmatory observation conducted to determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the performance deficiencies identified in the February 5, 2001, March 16, 2001, and May 22, 2001, observations. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report in which she reported that she found Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in all five categories of TADS, Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas based her determination that Ms. Stern's classroom performance was unacceptable on several factors. During the September 13, 2001, observation, Ms. Thomas noted that Ms. Stern was not teaching the lesson identified on her lesson plan; one of the students repeatedly threw paper across the room into a garbage can without re-direction by Ms. Stern; students were talking to one another and moving around the room during the entire lesson, to the extent that it was difficult for Ms. Thomas to hear Ms. Stern; Ms. Stern did not remind students who were misbehaving of the class rules; Ms. Stern appeared not to notice a student crawling around on the floor; Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, but she did not call on the students who did so; and Ms. Stern had only two grades for the students in her grade book at a point in the school year when she should have had two grades listed for each student for each week of school in each the five subjects she taught in her second grade class, or over 40 grades. Recommendation for termination. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas notified Ms. Stern that she had failed to comply with the Category VII prescription imposed on May 23, 2001, because she had failed to turn in any lesson plans during the first weeks of the 2001-2002 school year. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas also presented to Ms. Stern for her signature a form that Ms. Thomas intended to submit to Dr. George M. Koonce, Regional Superintendent, containing Ms. Thomas's recommendation that Ms. Stern's employment contract be terminated because she had not satisfactorily corrected the noted performance deficiencies within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Ms. Stern refused to sign the form to acknowledge that she was aware of the recommendation. Dr. Koonce indicated his approval of Ms. Thomas's recommendation and forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel and Management Services, who, in turn, forwarded the recommendation to the Superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In a letter dated October 1, 2001, the Superintendent notified Ms. Stern that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated at its October 24, 2001, meeting. Ms. Stern timely contested the recommendation, and this administrative proceeding commenced. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Stern failed to correct the deficiencies identified in her classroom performance within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, that School Board personnel adhered to the applicable evaluation procedures in assessing Ms. Stern's teaching performance and in reaching the decision to terminate her for unsatisfactory teaching performance, and that the School Board adhered to all statutory timeframes. Throughout the duration of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown offered Ms. Stern assistance to help her correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, although Ms. Stern completed many of the prescription plan activities identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001, she was unable or unwilling to implement in the classroom the techniques and lessons included in the prescription plan activities and failed to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. In her testimony, Ms. Stern did not dispute any of the facts included by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the formal observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001. Rather, Ms. Stern presented in her testimony justifications for and explanations of her classroom performance during the formal observations. This testimony has been considered and found insufficient to rebut the evidence of unsatisfactory performance presented by the School Board: Ms. Stern's second grade class was composed of students of varying abilities and ethnic backgrounds, but so were all of the second grade classes at Campbell Drive Elementary. Ms. Stern's classroom may not have provided an optimum environment for teaching, but the shortcomings of the physical and technological facilities provided to Ms. Stern do not justify the noted deficiencies in her teaching and classroom skills. Finally, Ms. Stern's laissez-faire attitude regarding the inappropriate behavior of her students is difficult to reconcile with her obligation as a teacher to maintain a classroom environment in which opportunities for learning are maximized.9
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order terminating the professional services contract of Joanne T. Stern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31st day of October, 2002.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board Policies 8.25(1)(j) and 8.25(1)(t), and, if so, whether Petitioner should suspend Respondent for three days.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Rosenthal is employed by Petitioner as a clerk specialist III in the specialized hiring section of the human relations department of the Pinellas County School District. Part of her assigned duties includes processing applications for substitute teachers to be employed by Pinellas County Schools. Ms. Rosenthal has been employed as a clerk specialist III since 2000. Her job responsibilities include the accurate and timely processing of data and files in the specialized hiring department of the Pinellas County School District. On January 12, 2008, Ms. Rosenthal met with Starla Metz, who at that time was the human resources director for specialized hiring, concerning the length of time Ms. Rosenthal was taking to process on-line substitute applications. Ms. Rosenthal was directed to use a weekly list to track the status of the on-line applications and to enter information in the sub database when she spoke with or emailed an applicant. Terri Alford, a human resources specialist, was directed to meet with Ms. Rosenthal each Friday to offer support as needed. In February Marilyn Lusher replaced Ms. Metz as director. Beginning on April 10, 2008, and continuing for about five meetings thereafter, Ms. Lusher met with the specialized hiring department to clarify and explain the department’s processes, to communicate transitions within the department, and to emphasize her expectations regarding accuracy and the need for confidence in the clerks’ data entry process. A checklist for the front of each file was updated, as well as detailed instructions for the clerks. Terri Alford and Karen Cope, a human resource specialist, supervised Ms. Rosenthal. They advised Ms. Lusher that Ms. Rosenthal continued to make clerical errors. Ms. Lusher requested that they provide her with specific instances in which errors were made. Ms. Alford and Ms. Cope documented the errors and presented them to Ms. Lusher. Additionally, Ms. Alford and Ms. Cope were instructed to document errors made by others in the department. On August 7, 2008, Ms. Lusher met with Ms. Rosenthal concerning performance deficiencies in Ms. Rosenthal’s work. Ms. Rosenthal had inaccurately retrieved information on an individual which would make the individual ineligible for hiring. A letter to the individual stating that the individual was a no hire had to be retrieved from the mailroom. Additionally, Ms. Rosenthal had made other errors such as: filing information in an applicant’s file that should have been filed in another applicant’s file, making inaccurate data entries in Winocular, and delaying the processing of applications. Ms. Rosenthal was given some steps to take in order to improve her work performance. Ms. Alford was to continue to meet with Ms. Rosenthal on Fridays to determine what support Ms. Rosenthal might need. Ms. Rosenthal always declined any additional help. Ms. Rosenthal’s poor work performance continued, and Ms. Lusher met with Ms. Rosenthal on August 15, 2008, to again discuss performance deficiencies. Ms. Rosenthal had taken some steps to correct her errors, but she continued to have delays in processing, inaccurate data entry, incomplete files, and errors in pulling the correct files. At that time, it was determined that future evaluations of Ms. Rosenthal’s performance were to be done using the Supporting Services Performance Appraisal form, which meant that Ms. Rosenthal’s performance would be rated as unsatisfactory, needs improvement, satisfactory, or better than satisfactory. On August 15 and September 12, 2008, Ms. Lusher met with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss errors that Ms. Rosenthal continued to make in her work. On September 26, 2008, Ms. Lusher and Dr. Ron Stone, assistant superintendent of Human Resources, met with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss Ms. Rosenthal’s inappropriate use of the computer and the Internet during working hours. Ms. Rosenthal was cautioned to refrain from the inappropriate use of the computer and to improve the accuracy and timely completion of her work. She was advised that there appeared to be a correlation between her inordinate use of the Internet and her poor work performance. Prior to the September 26, 2008, meeting, Ms. Rosenthal had requested that she be given additional time beyond her scheduled work hours to complete her work. This time would be compensated either as overtime or as compensatory time. At the September 26, 2008, meeting, Ms. Lusher informed Ms. Rosenthal that she would no longer be given additional time to complete her work. On October 23, 2008, Ms. Rosenthal was given a written reprimand for the unacceptable quality and quantity of her work. Ms. Rosenthal was directed to improve her work performance. After the written reprimand was issued, Ms. Rosenthal continued to make numerous clerical errors. Ms. Lusher’s job responsibilities increased dramatically, and she did not have the time to devote to meetings with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss Ms. Rosenthal’s deficient work performance. However, in August 2009, Ms. Lusher again met with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss Ms. Rosenthal’s errors in the processing or the absence of processing additional duty forms that were needed to process payroll for certain employees. Ms. Rosenthal had also provided some inaccurate information on extra duty time that was used in an agenda item for Petitioner, resulting in a complaint from the Superintendent of the Pinellas County Schools. Other issues were discussed such as Ms. Rosenthal’s personal telephone conversations while at work, Ms. Rosenthal’s transferring telephone calls to other team members when Ms. Rosenthal should have been able to answer the telephone inquiries, and Ms. Rosenthal’s failure to stay at her desk to answer the telephone when other team members were at lunch. On September 29, 2009, Ms. Rosenthal received a performance appraisal. She received an unsatisfactory rating for quality of work and a needs-to-improve rating for job knowledge, quantity of work, and initiative. She received satisfactory ratings for the other areas of her work. Ms. Rosenthal argues that, although she made mistakes, other team members also made mistakes. When Ms. Rosenthal’s mistakes are compared to the mistakes of other team members, Ms. Rosenthal’s are significantly greater in number. The use of the Internet and the conduct of personal business during work time contribute to Ms. Rosenthal’s inability to improve the quantity of her work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Rosenthal is guilty of incompetence in violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(j) and failure to correct performance deficiencies in violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t) and suspending her for three days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent YWCA is a nonprofit corporation that sponsors educational, social, and recreational programs. The YWCA's purpose states that it is a "movement rooted in the Christian faith"; however, expressed belief in Christianity is not required for membership in the YWCA or for employment by the YWCA. Its membership is comprised of adult women seventeen years of age and older. The personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action will be applied in recruitment, hiring, compensation, fringe benefits, staff development, and training, promotion, and any other condition of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, national origin, or any other nonperformance factors." (Emphasis added.) Regarding termination, the personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Reasons for staff termination must be carefully documented. They should be based upon objective performance appraisals, which in turn are based upon job descriptions, work plans, and performance standards. Except in cases of reorganization/retrenchment or termination for cause, a probationary period for work improvement must be provided, followed by another performance appraisal." The YWCA of West Palm Beach operates three facilities: Central and Residence, the Mamie Adair Branch, and the Recreation Center. The Mamie Adair Branch primarily serves the black community in West Palm Beach and includes a day-care facility. The Petitioner, Davis, was hired as the Branch Executive of the Mamie Adair Branch of the YWCA, effective July 21, 1980, at a starting salary of $12,000.00. The Petitioner was given copies of the YWCA's personnel policy, affirmative action plan, and job description. She was not given notice of particular standards of behavior to which she was required to conform away from the job. As branch Executive she was supervised by the Executive Director, Jo Prout. The Petitioner successfully completed her initial 90-day probationary period, and her annual salary was increased by five percent to $12,600.00. In October 1981, however, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation and was again placed on three months probations due primarily to an unsatisfactory working relationship with the Branch Committee. The Petitioner had a bad attitude and was antagonistic. The Petitioner became pregnant but did not immediately disclose the fact of her pregnancy. In approximately December, 1981, the Petitioner confided to a coworker that she was pregnant and the coworker, in turn, told the YWCA's Executive Director, Jo Prout, that the Petitioner was pregnant. The YWCA's Executive Director was concerned that the Petitioner's relationship with the Branch Committee would be severely adversely affected if the Committee found out the Petitioner was pregnant and unmarried. Because of this concern, the Executive Director removed the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, effective December 31, 1981. The Petitioner would not have been removed from her position on December 31, 1981, but for the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Prior to removing the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, the Executive Director did not attempt less drastic alternatives such as asking the Petitioner not to discuss or disclose her marital status or asking the Petitioner to take a leave of absence. Prior to her removal, the Petitioner had not discussed the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried with members of the Branch Committee or with the YWCA membership in general. At no time had the Petitioner advocated unwed motherhood as an alternative life- style or otherwise advocated or espoused principles contrary to her understanding of Christianity. In the past, certain employees of the YWCA whose on-the-job behavior was contrary to Christian principles received job discipline but were not removed from their positions. A desk clerk at the YWCA's residence, for example, who was found to have stolen property from residence guests was not discharged. The removal of the Petitioner from her position by the YWCA because she was pregnant and unmarried was not justified by the business necessity rule because: A requirement to conduct one's life, including one's off-the-job activities, according to Christian principles, was not disclosed to the Petitioner or to other employees; The YWCA did not discipline or discharge other employees for conduct which conflicted with the YWCA's alleged requirement to conduct one's life by Christian principles; and The YWCA did not show that a requirement of all employees to conduct their lives by Christian principles has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Then the Petitioner was removed from the Branch Executive position, she was transferred to the position of center consultant for gymnastics. The position of the center consultant for gymnastics to which the Petitioner was transferred was a demotion in that the Petitioner went from an administrative to a non-administrative position. The transfer also changed the Petitioner's employment status from full-time employee to part-time employee with a 25 percent decrease in earned income and a lunch "hour" reduced to 30 minutes. The petitioner's new position as center consultant was a temporary one designated to last no longer than five months. Petitioner was removed from probationary status as a result of the transfer. The position of center consultant to which the Petitioner was transferred was not a legitimate position. The position did not exist prior to December 31, 1981, the date the Petitioner was transferred. No job description was ever written for this position, despite the fact that the YWCA personnel policy required job descriptions. The Petitioner was verbally assigned job tasks inconsistent with her title of center consultant, including cleaning toilets at the gymnastics center. The position was eliminated on February 16, 1982, approximately six weeks after it was created, allegedly due to financial streamlining. The YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, discriminating against her on the basis of sex and marital status by removing her from her position as Branch Executive because she was pregnant and unmarried. Moreover, this transfer was not justified by business necessity. Because the YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, the Petitioner could be entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to a comparable position and could also be entitled to recover lost wages and fringe benefits, plus interest thereon, from the date of the wrongful act, December 31, 1981, to November 31, 1982, the date she was hired by the Lutheran Ministries, set off by any interim earnings and reduced by the Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits plus her reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Regarding reinstatement, the Petitioner has been and is now willing and able to be reinstated to her former position as Branch Executive or to a comparable administrative position. The employer's argument that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement because she was an unsatisfactory employee is rejected for the following reasons: The employer's allegations that the Petitioner will not satisfactorily perform her job if reinstated are too speculative and any doubts about the Petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement should be resolved in favor of the victim of discrimination; and In the event that the Petitioner's job performance upon reinstatement is not satisfactory, the employer may avail itself of the procedures set forth in its personnel policy to improve the Petitioner's performance or discharge her for unsatisfactory job performance. However, reinstatement may not be feasible in this case due to the fact that another employee has been placed in the Petitioner's former position. If the Petitioner is not reinstated to a comparable administrative position, then she should be compensated by the award of six months front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner is entitled to damages in the amount of $13,551, which represents a back pay award of $11,000 plus 10 percent interest, six months front pay in the amount of $6,000, minus $1,575 for salary paid from January 1, 1982 - February 16, 1982, including two weeks severance pay and $2,974 in unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner is also entitled to costs of $232.65 and attorneys fees totaling $5,000.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment by the Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Hodgson was employed by the School Board as a custodian. She has been so employed since 1981. In 1999, Hodgson became deficient in the most basic element of a custodian's job--the duty to show up for work at her assigned school, in this case Miami Park Elementary (Miami Park). By July 1, 1999, Hodgson had accumulated ten unauthorized absences, enough to draw the attention of Principal Henry N. Crawford, Jr. (Crawford), and enough, standing alone, to justify termination under Petitioner's contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) the bargaining unit to which Hodgson belongs. At this time Crawford did not seek to terminate Hodgson's employment, although he could have. Instead, he counseled her regarding the School Board's reasonable and lawful requirement that she, like all employees, had the responsibility to inform the school's administration in advance of an absence, or as soon as practicable in an emergency. Nevertheless, on July 30, 1999, Hodgson left work at 6:46 p.m. instead of at the end of her shift at 11:30 p.m. Her area of the building was not cleaned properly and she was docked one half day's pay. For a considerable time after that incident, Hodgson's attendance improved. But in March 2000, her attendance again became a problem. Hodgson was absent 13 times between March 3 and March 20. Crawford again attempted to work with Hodgson, authorizing six of those absences. At the same time, he informed her of the obvious: that this level of absenteeism impeded the effective operation of the worksite. Crawford encouraged Hodgson to consider taking advantage of the School Board's generous leave-of-absence policy in order to preserve her good standing at work while taking the time necessary to deal with the issues which were causing her to miss work. Respondent neither replied to Crawford's proposal that she consider a leave of absence nor improved upon her by now sporadic attendance. Thereafter, Crawford requested assistance from OPS. On April 11, 2000, OPS wrote to advise Hodgson that she was absent without authority and that her absences were deemed abandonment of position. She was directed to provide written notification to OPS to review her situation or her employment would be terminated by the School Board. For a short time, Hodgson took this threat seriously enough to improve her attendance, but by now Crawford had a much shorter fuse with respect to Hodgson's disregard for workplace policies regarding attendance. When, on May 11, 2000, Respondent was an hour and a half late to work, Crawford sent her a memorandum the next day, again reminding her that she must report to work on time and that she was to report any absences or tardiness to school administration in a timely manner. Crawford wrote two additional warning memos to Hodgson in June 2000, but was unsuccessful in persuading her to improve her attendance or to discuss her situation, including the advisability of a leave of absence, in a forthright manner. Finally, Crawford directed Respondent to attend a disciplinary conference known as a Conference for the Record (CFR) on July 3, 2000, to discuss her absenteeism. At the CFR, Crawford again gave Respondent face-to-face directives to be present at work and when absences were unavoidable, to call the school in a timely manner. Two additional formal disciplinary conferences were held between the July 3 CFR and Respondent's termination. Crawford, having been unsuccessful in his efforts to generate honest communication with Hodgson about why a 20-year employee had stopped fulfilling her most basic job requirement, attempted to refer her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). EAP offers employees assistance in resolving personal problems in a manner which allows the employee to also fulfill work obligations. If such accommodations cannot be made, EAP counselors assist in helping the employee separate from his employment in a manner which does not blemish his resume. Supervisors such as Crawford may make referrals to the EAP whenever they feel an employee can and should be helped, and EAP services are also available for the asking to any School Board employee who wishes to take advantage of those services. No one is required to use EAP services, and Hodgson declined to do so. Hodgson's by now chronic absenteeism persisted. Her colleagues on the custodial staff tried, some more graciously than others, to cover her assigned duties, but Crawford was fielding an increasing number of complaints from teachers regarding their classrooms not being serviced. Morale among custodians declined in the face of the administration's seeming inability to control Hodgson. During the last two years of Hodgson's employment, she had 175 unauthorized absences. Eighty-one of those occurred in the last 12 months prior to her termination. By way of defense, Hodgson said that she developed diabetes in the past three years and that most of her absences were medically necessary. She offered voluminous stacks of paper which she claims document legitimate medical problems which made it impossible for her to work. Additional exhibits relate to a young relative she felt obligated to drive to medical appointments during her work hours. These exhibits prove little, if anything. Individually and collectively they are neither self-authenticating nor self-explanatory, and many had not been previously provided to Crawford in connection with her failure to appear for work, nor disclosed to the School Board in compliance with the pre-hearing order in this case. But even if these documents had been properly authenticated and would have in fact justified an extended medical and/or family hardship leave of absence, the evidence fails to establish that they were tendered to Crawford at the time Hodgson was absent. Hodgson did not seek medical or disability leave, either individually or through her collective bargaining unit. Hodgson offered no testimony to contradict the School Board's evidence regarding the dozens of occasions on which she failed to show up for work. Neither did she offer any evidence that her repeated failure to comply with attendance policies was justified due to any misconduct on the part of any of Petitioner's employees. At all times material to this case, the School Board was in compliance with applicable statutory and contractual provisions concerning employee discipline and termination with respect to Hodgson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice E. Hodgson 14020 Northeast 3rd Court, No. 5 North Miami, Florida 33161 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began employment with Respondent as a Veterans' Affairs Officer I, on August 10, 1987. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was in probationary status. Between August 10, 1987, and November 6, 1987, Petitioner was given extensive and thorough training and counseling by the Respondent on his job duties and responsibilities, as well as information about relevant provisions of Florida and Federal laws and rules pertaining to his job. The training and counseling which Petitioner received was the same as was received by other Veterans' Affairs Officers. From September 8 through 11, 1987, John Whalen conducted a course, "Introduction to Veterans Benefits", which Petitioner attended. The course was given over a four day period rather than the usual five day period, because Labor Day fell during the week of the course. However, since there was only one other student in the course, Whalen testified that he was able to cover all of the material and offer special assistance to students in attendance, and this was his normal procedure whenever there were only two students in a course. Following the course, Petitioner scored 91 out of 100 on a test given covering the course material. Petitioner was allowed to take time during the work day to review materials about veterans' benefits, and was allowed to ask questions of his supervisor, Ron Matson, at the end of each day whenever there was something he did not understand. Matson also conducted numerous counseling sessions with Petitioner in an attempt to explain office procedures and requirements to Petitioner. On or about August 10, 1987, and again on December 1, 1987, Petitioner was provided with copies of the "Essential Elements" and "Performance Standards" for his position. On or about September 2, 1987, he also received a "Career Service System Position Description" for the position which he held. He signed for these documents, and thereby acknowledged receipt. Petitioner's performance was evaluated by Ron Matson, his supervisor, on November 6, 1987, as "Below Performance Standards". Matson met with Petitioner on or about November 29, 1987, and discussed this evaluation. Petitioner declined the opportunity to offer any comments at that time. A second performance evaluation was prepared for Petitioner during December, 1987, and it also reflected performance "Below Standards". Petitioner signed this second performance appraisal on December 31, 1987. This was the second "Below Standards" appraisal received by Petitioner while in probationary status. Petitioner was terminated by the Respondent on December 31, 1987, due solely to his documented failure to perform basic and essential tasks of his job. Specifically, numerous and repeated errors were found in veterans' claims submitted by the Petitioner, and he demonstrated little, if any, ability to retain and recall knowledge and instructions to which he had been exposed in training and counseling sessions. The work he did complete was filled with typographical and other clerical errors, which then had to be brought to his attention and corrected. He was inordinately slow in the performance of his duties, thereby delaying the submission of claims, and repeatedly missing deadlines. As demonstrated at hearing, Petitioner has a minimal ability to communicate, and this impaired his ability to serve veterans who needed assistance in handling claims and other matters. His attitude toward his supervisor and co-workers was uncooperative. Petitioner asserts that he was treated differently from other employees. He complains that he was required to wear a tie, but it was established that office policy required employees to either wear a tie with a dress shirt, or a sport shirt that did not require a tie. This was explained to Petitioner by Ron Matson, and was applied to all employees uniformly. He also complains that Matson was unfriendly and aggressive toward him, but the evidence establishes that Matson did not treat Petitioner unfairly. He did find it necessary to be assertive with Petitioner because of his demonstrated inability to either understand or follow directions. However, Matson's actions were appropriate and justified. Petitioner also asserts that he was not allowed to work a flex schedule, but the evidence establishes that employees in probationary status are always required to work 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. in order to maximize training opportunities during regular business hours. Finally, he claims he was not allowed to take coffee breaks, but his co-workers refuted this claim. Petitioner was invited to take breaks with his co-workers, but instead he chose to stay at his desk and read. On January 5, 1988, Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination against Respondent alleging that he had been terminated due to his race. Petitioner is black, and no other employees in the office in which he worked are black. After investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission made a determination of "no cause" concerning Petitioner's complaint, and Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief, resulting in this hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX (D0AH CASE NO. 89-1662) The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order with Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2-4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as simply a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Wright P. O. Box 11433 Tampa, FL 33680 Donald J. Bradley, Esquire P. O. Box 1437 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 760.027, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked full-time as a floor technician (floor tech) at Respondent's nursing home facility. As a floor tech, Petitioner was responsible for dusting, mopping and buffing the floors. At all relevant times, Cheryl Johnson was Respondent's facility administrator. Ms. Johnson has held that position since December 2002. In May 2003, Petitioner asked Ms. Johnson if she could receive her paycheck early. Petitioner was aware that Ms. Johnson had given an early paycheck to a nurse. The record does not reveal the nurse's race. Ms. Johnson refused to give Petitioner the early paycheck. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had made a mistake in giving the nurse an early paycheck. Ms. Johnson stated that she would not violate Respondent's policy against early paychecks again. Petitioner filed a grievance, claiming that Ms. Johnson was not being fair. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Johnson gave an early paycheck to a dietary employee. The dietary employee was an African- American. With regard to early paychecks, there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson ever gave preferential treatment to employees who were not members of a protected group. In October 2003, Sue Goldfarb was Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Goldfarb criticized Petitioner because Petitioner was spending too much time in the Activities Room. Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed two grievances, claiming that she was being treated unfairly. According to Petitioner, Ms. Goldfarb and a medical records clerk, Pam Brock, did not get into trouble for spending time in the Activities Room. Ms. Johnson explained that Petitioner could assist in the Activities Room, but only after she completed her floor tech duties. There is no evidence that Respondent ever allowed employees to assist in the Activities Room before they completed their regularly assigned duties. Petitioner did not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of Ms. Goldfarb's criticism. At some point in time, Respondent informed all housekeepers, including Petitioner, that their hours were being cut from seven-and-a-half hours per day to six-and-a-half hours per day. Respondent also informed the housekeepers that they would not be eligible for overtime hours. Respondent took these actions because the facility's "census" (number of residents) was low. In February 2004, Ms. Johnson decided to redecorate the Activity Room as a special weekend project. Ms. Johnson requested Gary Brock, Pam Brock's husband and a maintenance man for the facility, to work over the weekend to complete project. Ms. Johnson also requested Ms. Brock to assist with the project because Ms. Brock recently had been short on hours. Thereafter, Petitioner impermissibly reviewed a document on a supervisor's desk. The document indicated that Ms. Brock, the medical records clerk, received three hours of overtime on the weekend of the special project. Petitioner copied the document and returned the original to the supervisor's desk. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not supposed to be looking at documents on the supervisor's desk. In February 2004, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining that Ms. Brock had received overtime. Petitioner thought it was unfair for Ms. Brock, a medical records clerk, to receive overtime hours, while the housekeepers had their hours reduced. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed a grievance that Ms. Goldfarb was not doing her job. After receiving Petitioner's complaint, Ms. Johnson decided to obtain a statement from each housekeeper as to whether they had any concerns regarding Ms. Goldfarb. In March 2004, Ms. Johnson temporarily held all of the housekeepers' paychecks. She requested the housekeepers to visit her office, render their opinions about the housekeeping supervisor, and collect their checks. Petitioner, like all of the housekeepers had to visit Ms. Johnson's office to pick up her paycheck. While she was there, Petitioner signed a statement, indicating that Ms. Goldfarb did not treat her fairly. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining, in part, because Ms. Johnson held the paychecks for the entire housekeeping department. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At the end of March 2004, Petitioner had a confrontation with a co-worker, Robert Goldfarb. Mr. Goldfarb was Sue Goldfarb's husband. The altercation occurred after Mr. Goldfarb walked across a wet floor that Petitioner had just mopped. Mr. Goldfarb had to walk across the wet floor to get to the restroom. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb cursed at each other and engaged in a shouting match. Petitioner filed a grievance about the incident. Respondent did not discipline Petitioner or Mr. Goldfarb for getting into the argument. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb have not had a similar exchange since the March 2004 incident. In September 2004, Petitioner and her supervisor, Ms. Goldfarb, engaged in an argument outside Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Johnson suspended both employees for three days. After an investigation, Ms. Johnson reinstated Petitioner and Ms. Goldfarb and gave them back pay to make them whole. Since September 2004, Petitioner has received pay raises. She has not received any write-ups, reprimands, or any other type of discipline. She has not filed any grievances since September 2004. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Goldfarb was still Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner was serving as Respondent's Chairperson of the Safety Committee, a position of special trust and responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 26th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorina Smith 1160 East Mays Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Alvin J. Taylor Delta Health Group 2 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed with the State of Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of Facilities Management, Bureau of Maintenance (DMS), in 1979 or 1980. Her date of retirement was February 19, 1993. Petitioner graduated from Florida A&M high school and attended Florida A&M University for approximately one and one-half years. Between 1950 and 1979 or 1980, Petitioner was primarily a homemaker but also worked in various clerical positions until starting work with the Department of Management Services as a custodial worker. Petitioner began working as a custodial worker at the Twin Towers Building in Tallahassee, Florida. In that capacity, Ms. Lewis was responsible for dusting, vacuuming, trash removal, and spot cleaning furniture, walls and doors. During her tenure at the Twin Towers Building Ms. Lewis received the following discipline: Oral reprimand for excessive absenteeism, on September 20, 1982. Written reprimand for excessive absenteeism; on September 15, 1983; and Suspension for three workdays for the third offense of excessive absenteeism on September 5, 1984. Additionally, around April 30, 1985, the building superintendent at Twin Towers gave Ms. Lewis a memorandum of concern about her absenteeism. Around April 23, 1987, she was given a memorandum of concern about tardiness in reporting to work because she had been late to work twelve times in the three month period prior to the memo. Ms. Lewis seemed to improve her daily attendance at work but, the problem of tardiness to work continued. Petitioner began working as a night shift custodial worker at the Capitol in May of 1988, when she was transferred from the Twin Towers Building. The transfer was necessary because all of the full-time custodial positions at the Twin Towers Building were changed to halftime positions. DMS custodial workers at the Capitol on the night shift were responsible for cleaning of the public areas and offices of the capitol complex, including dusting, vacuuming, trash removal, and spot cleaning furniture, walls and doors. Generally, four employees work as a team to quick clean certain areas and do more thorough cleaning in other areas each night as assigned by that shift's custodial supervisors. All members of the general cleaning teams were expected to arrive at work at 5:00 p.m. and work until 1:00 a.m. The lunch break was considered work time for the employees and was therefore paid. Upon joining the custodial workers at the Capitol, Ms. Lewis was assigned the task of dusting the historic capitol building. Her performance appraised by Tommy Denis, Custodial Supervisor III, indicated that she was a good worker with attendance and tardiness problems. Eventually, Petitioner, at her request, was moved to work with a team on the plaza level at the Capitol. Her duties consisted of dusting with occasional vacuuming and emptying of small office trash cans which weighed less than 10 pounds into large trash containers on wheels. She continued to receive good appraisal ratings with the problems of attendance and tardiness noted. Another change in duty assignment placed Ms. Lewis with a team working on multiple, upper floors of the Capitol. Her principal duty continued to be dusting with occasional vacuuming and emptying of small office trash cans which weighed less than 10 pounds into large trash containers on wheels. Ms. Lewis reported to her doctor that she was assigned the duty of dusting. Petitioner testified she could empty the small office trash cans. Ms. Lewis was not assigned to lift recycle paper and not assigned to pull bags of trash out of the large trash barrels on wheels. Additionally, Ms. Lewis, along with other custodial workers were instructed not to lift anything that was too heavy and to call for help when such a situation was encountered. At some point in her employment, Ms. Lewis injured her back while lifting trash. Because of the injury she experienced recurrent pain in her right leg and lower back. In August of 1989, Ms. Lewis had surgery for her back problem. Soon after the surgery in September of 1989, Ms. Lewis fell out of bed onto her hip. The fall delayed her in recovering from the surgery mainly due to new pain in her hip. The pain for which she had the surgery was absent. However, Ms. Lewis did not communicate with DMS regarding her status and her ability to return to work. Since her medical condition was unclear to Building Superintendent Boynton, he requested the assistance of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services. Bureau Chief Dave Fulcher wrote Ms. Lewis to ascertain her status. She solicited her surgeon, Dr. Geissinger, to respond to Mr. Fulcher. Dr. Geissinger evaluated the duties of the position held by Ms. Lewis from her position description. On November 30, 1989, Dr. Geissinger wrote Mr. Fulcher that Ms. Lewis could be expected to perform the duties of her position. Dr. Geissinger also attached a copy of his office notes dated 11/30/89, which indicated Ms. Lewis still experienced some pain but that she was not in acute distress. In November 1989, Dr. Geissinger did not specify "light duty" for Petitioner but at other times, Dr. Geissinger and other doctors specified a weight limit for Petitioner's lifting. The suggested limits did not exceed the lifting requirements of Petitioner's position. Dr. E. E. Lowder sent the last "light duty" restriction for Ms. Lewis. He limited her lifting to 10 - 15 pounds and indicated that her release from doctor's care was pending. Importantly, there was no evidence which indicated that Petitioner's back problem amounted to a condition which impaired any major life function of Petitioner. Moreover, there was no evidence that DMS perceived Petitioner's back problem as a handicap. In fact, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated Petitioner's condition was not a handicap and was not perceived as such by her employer. During the six month period from 5/8/92 to 11/5/92, Ms. Lewis was tardy 46 times by eight minutes or more. During the eight month period from 6/20/90 to 2/28/91 Petitioner was tardy 46 times. Following 2/28/91, Ms. Lewis was tardy at least 5 more times. On April 11, 1991 Ms. Lewis received an oral reprimand for her tardiness. Ms. Lewis was again tardy two more times and received a written reprimand for excessive tardiness on May 7, 1991. Later, Petitioner received a three workday suspension for tardiness which was served on January 12, 13, and 14, 1993. Ms. Lewis did not deny that she had been tardy. Other employees, males and females, were disciplined for excessive absenteeism and tardiness. After the suspension was served in January, 1993, Ms. Lewis was tardy 15 times in the next 18 days, nine days of which were 8 minutes or more. The fact that some of the days Petitioner was late were for less than seven minutes does not eliminate the tardiness. DMS rules on the subject only address when an employee's wages can be docked for such lateness. Since Ms. Lewis continued to be tardy, Allen Dallis, Maintenance Supervisor, initiated the first step of a recommendation to dismiss Ms. Lewis for continuing tardiness. Ms. Lewis gave reasons for being tardy which included, being stuck in traffic, doctors' appointments, her ride to work being late, caring for her grandchildren, and sickness of her daughter. Often she was late simply because, for unknown reasons, she waited outside her place of employment before coming into work. At no time in the disciplinary process leading up to the suspension or after the suspension did Ms. Lewis assert that she was being singled out due to her sex or handicap. In fact, Ms. Lewis would not talk with her supervisors about her tardiness or her assignments. In general Ms. Lewis did not communicate well with her supervisors and had formed the habit that if they said something to her, she would walk off and not respond. Generally, Ms. Lewis did not notify her supervisors ahead of time that she would be tardy even though she knew in advance when her tardiness might occur. She occasionally called Mr. Rivers, a custodial supervisor, on the same day that she would be tardy to tell him she would be late. Mr. Rivers was not available for calls until 5:00 p.m. each day after the shift had begun. Occasionally, Ms. Lewis would advise her supervisors the evening before that she would be late the next day. After July 12, 1990, Ms. Lewis received leave without pay (LWOP) when she was more than seven minutes tardy and she had not brought in medical certification. Tardiness of custodial workers presented problems in scheduling the work because the workers were organized in teams whose members moved together doing their tasks. If one of the usual team members was absent or late at the beginning of the shift, the supervisors would organize the employees who were present into different teams in order to try to cover all areas with the available workers and have no one working alone. Frequently it was not evident whether Ms. Lewis was tardy or absent for the evening. Ms. Lewis asked that if she were tardy in reporting to work, she be allowed to make up the amount of time she had been tardy on the same night. She did not request a change in her schedule. Her choice of make up time was during the lunch break when her time was already counted as work-time, or after 1:00 a.m., when all workers and supervisors were gone from the building. The request was denied because a daily schedule which changes as the employee chooses would not fit the staffing organization of the custodial work force in the Capitol. Additionally, a worker could not stay in the Capitol past the end of the shift at 1:00 a.m. with no supervisors present. No employee was permitted to adjust their daily schedule in such an unpredictable manner. A few years ago, Dunk Chambers, at the time a custodial worker on a floor team, and Johnny Pease, at the time a Custodial Supervisor I, had flexible schedules in which they reported to work at 5:30 p.m. each day except Wednesday. On Wednesdays they reported to work early enough to make up time missed during the week. These schedules were predictable and set well in advance. Currently, Mr. Chambers, Custodial Supervisor II, and Mr. Pease, Custodial Supervisor III, currently follow the regular night shift schedule. Presently, two female custodial workers at the building where Tommy Denis is supervisor, follow a schedule in which their arrival and departure from work is different from that of other employees. Again these schedules are predictable and are set well in advance. The denial of Ms. Lewis' request to make up time when she was tardy was not due to a medical condition, handicap or sex. At least one other female employee who had no medical problem was disciplined for excessive tardiness to work. Allen Dallis asked Ms. Lewis if she wanted to work part-time as a suggestion of a possible change that would enable her to report to work on time, but she walked off with no answer. The option of retirement was offhandedly mentioned to her also. During these conversations, there was no coercion, duress, misinformation or deception by the supervisors and there was no indication that Ms. Lewis was in any way harassed by her supervisors. During her tenure with DMS, Ms. Lewis did not present any medical justification for nor request any specific accommodation for her back problems other than temporary light duty for a condition from which she would soon be released. The evidence was very clear that Petitioner was only doing light duty work which work could not be lightened further. Finally, there was no evidence that Petitioner was subjected to any discrimination based on sex or handicap. Finally, the evidence did show that Petitioner's discipline was justified, that she was not constructively discharged, and that Petitioner chose to retire in February 1993. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was discriminated against because of her sex or handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO DOAH CASE NO. 94-3996 The facts contained in paragraphs of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 34, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 68 Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3,,, 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 43, and 44 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 9, 11, 18, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 46 and 47 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Joan Van Arsdall Department of Management Services Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Marie Mattox 3045 Tower Court Tallahassee, FL 32303 Helen Burgess AFSCME Florida Council 79 345 South Magnolia Drive Suite A-13 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ms. Sharon Moultry Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149
