The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent, Robert A. Evans', employment with Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (the "Board"), based on Evans' history of violations of employee policies, most recently and specifically, using his position to seek a personal relationship with the parent of a student. Evans is accused of violating the following Board policies: 4140-A (10)--Using position for personal gain/conflict of interest; 4140-A (21)--Conduct unbecoming a board employee that brings the district into disrepute or that disrupts the orderly process of the district; 3140-A (22)--Misconduct or Misconduct in Office; 4140-A (24)--Failure to comply with board policy, State law, or appropriate contractual agreement; and 4362--Anti-Harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the governing body responsible for hiring, firing and overseeing all employees in the Pinellas County School District. Specifically, the Board has responsibility for employees at the School, including educational support employees who provide services to the School. At all times relevant hereto, Evans was an educational support employee of the Board. Evans had worked as a school bus driver for the Board for 14 years. At the time of the incident, which is the primary focus of this administrative hearing, Evans was serving as a relief driver. That is, Evans would drive a bus route when the regular driver was sick or otherwise unavailable. Relief drivers are paid a higher hourly wage than regular drivers. On September 21, 2010, Evans had been assigned Route 879, relieving David Levering, the regular driver. The route included a number of stops before terminating at the School. The first stop on the route was at Anastasia Way and Cordova Way (the "Bus Stop"). When Evans arrived at the Bus Stop, a child, identified herein as "M.P.C.," got on the bus. M.P.C. had been escorted to the Bus Stop by her mother, A.E. Evans engaged in some sort of idle chat with A.E., including questions which she considered frivolous. For example, Evans asked A.E. if a nearby truck was for sale. A.E. thought Evans was acting oddly and had no further conversations with him. Evans did not drive Route 879 on the after-school run. On the following day, September 22, 2010, Evans was assigned to a different bus. That bus also terminated at the School. When Evans was at the school on September 22, 2010, he asked the assistant principal, Brennan, to do him a favor. Evans handed Brennan a small sealed envelope. He asked Brennan to give the note to an assistant on the bus for Route 879 and to ask the assistant to give it to a student, M.P.C. Brennan made some quick written comments on the envelope and then delivered it to the bus assistant as requested. Brennan did not know what the envelope contained. He believed it must have been something the student left on the bus. The note was dutifully transferred to the bus assistant and then to M.P.C., who gave the note to her mother, A.E. The note said in its entirety: 9-22/10 Hello I'm the bus driver. I picked up at your daughter's bus stop. We meet [sic] I would like to talk to you [telephone number] Mt. Vernon Elementary School Robert Anytime Evans contends that the purpose of the note was to make sure that M.P.C. got on the correct bus, at the correct bus stop, at the proper time. According to Evans, A.E. had complained to him on the morning of September 21, 2010, that the bus frequently arrived late or early at the Bus Stop. Evans says that he felt a duty to help M.P.C., notwithstanding the fact that he had never met her before and was only doing relief duty on September 21, 2010. According to the Transportation Department records, however, A.E. had only called a couple of times about the bus being late. Evans' explanation about the purpose of the note is not consistent with the facts and is not credible. When A.E. received the note, she was somewhat upset. felt as though Evans was coming on to her or making an improper proposition. She discussed the note with her boyfriend, but did not do anything about it initially. She just thought Evans was acting weird or inappropriate, because she had never asked him for assistance or discussed any problems with him. But she was not sufficiently upset to take further action at that time. On the following Monday, A.E. remembers the school bus coming toward the Bus Stop, but when the driver looked at her, he turned the bus down another street as if he were avoiding her. A.E. thought the driver, who she believed was Evans, was intentionally trying to punish her daughter because she (A.E.) did not respond to his advances. However, there was no evidence presented at final hearing that Evans was driving Route 879 on that Monday. According to the Board's manager of Transportation, Evans only drove Route 879 one time, September 21, 2010, so A.E. is obviously mistaken as to that fact. Nonetheless, A.E. decided to contact the School about Evans' actions, i.e., sending her a note and skipping her daughter's bus stop on Monday.2/ She called the School to complain; Brennan took the call. Brennan described A.E.'s attitude and demeanor during the phone call as extremely irate. It was at that time that Brennan discovered the content of the note he had helped deliver. Brennan was embarrassed at his inadvertent involvement in the matter. Brennan then called the county Transportation Office to report the incident. The Transportation Office's written report concerning the incident is fraught with errors and cannot be relied upon to make a finding of fact, but it is clear Evans' behavior was deemed inappropriate. In fact, Evans admitted under oath that it was against the rules for him to give either a note or his cell phone number to A.E. Based upon the nature of the infraction, the School contacted its Office of Professional Standards to inquire as to what sanction should be imposed on Evans for his behavior. It was decided that termination of employment was the proper discipline based on Evans' history of problems. Taken into consideration by the Board were the following disciplinary actions against Evans during the two years preceding the incident: November 14, 2008--warning for using school bus for personal use; December 5, 2008--conference summary for not using most direct path to return to compound; May 4, 2009--letter of caution for excessive absences; October 20, 2009--conference summary for tampering with the bus camera and failing to properly compound the bus after use; December 16, 2009--letter of warning for failing to operate a shuttle in a timely fashion; January 29, 2010--letter of reprimand for not arriving at bus stops timely and improper, dangerous discharge of students from the bus; May 26, 2010--letter imposing a 15-day suspension without pay based upon failing to drop a student off at the appropriate stop, then failing to follow proper procedures to correct the situation; and October 26, 2010--conference summary failing to properly and completely cover his assigned route. At the time the Board discussed and considered this latest transgression, Evans had not completed his 15-day suspension from May 2010. Evans had been allowed to serve the suspension over a period of time, rather than all at once, and he had not completed the suspension as of the December 7, 2010, Board meeting. He had not completed the suspension at the time of the incident at issue in this proceeding. Evans is aware of and has been trained as to the requirements set forth in the School Bus Driver Handbook. As part of the training relating to the handbook, drivers are frequently told they should not contact parents of children on their bus. There is a protocol for putting parents in contact with the School or the Board. If a parent has a complaint, the bus driver is supposed to give them a card that contains contact information on it. The card has a line for the driver to write his or her name and the bus route. The driver is not expected to have, and is prohibited from having, further conversation with the parent. Rather, the driver is supposed to fill out a card, give it to the parent, and direct the parent to contact the School or Board directly. Evans contends that he provided a card to A.E.; she says she never received a card from Evans or from any other bus driver. It seems incongruent that Evans would give A.E. a card and also a personal note. His testimony in that regard is not credible. The Board has enacted bylaws and policies addressing, inter alia, action which can be deemed harassing in nature. Policy 4362 includes a prohibition against "[u]nwelcome sexual propositions, invitations, solicitations, and flirtations." Policy 4140 prohibits an employee from using their position for personal gain. The same policy also establishes a penalty for an employee's failure to correct substandard performance of their duties. An employee may also be dismissed for conduct unbecoming a Board employee or which brings the school district into disrepute. Employees also face disciplinary action for misconduct or failing to comply with Board policies, state law, or a contractual agreement. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Board and the employees' union, employees go through a system of progressive discipline. Under this standard, discipline may, but need not, follow the following progression: Verbal or written counseling or warnings; Written reprimands; Suspension without pay; and Dismissal. Evans had received verbal and written counseling, as evidenced by the conference summaries. He had received written letters of reprimand for his performance. Evans had been suspended without pay for 15 days. Dismissal, i.e., termination of his employment contract, was the next step in the progressive discipline rules. Evans' testimony that he was simply trying to ensure the M.P.C. got on the correct bus is not credible. It does not make sense that a relief driver would immediately become concerned about and attempt to intervene in a bus stop issue for an unknown student. Further, his own admission that he knew it was wrong to contact a student's parent makes his position even less plausible. Evans did not have the ability to do anything for A.E. about the bus schedule; the bus schedule is beyond Evans' scope of authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, upholding the termination of Respondent, Robert Evans', employment for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Dismissal from Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public school operations in Palm Beach County. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus attendant since January 25, 2006. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings. As a school bus attendant employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the SEIU/Florida Public Services Union (SEIU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and SEIU (SEIU Contract). Article 7 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Employees Contractual Rights." Section 2 of this article provides as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the School Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Management Rights," and it provides, in pertinent part, that the School Board has the right "to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." As is its right under Article 8 of the SEIU Contract, the School Board has established requirements for its school bus attendants. These requirements are set forth in a School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook (SDSBA Handbook) distributed to each and every school bus driver and school bus attendant employed by the School Board. The SDSBA Handbook provides, in pertinent part, as follows: X. Transportation of Exceptional Students by School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants * * * B. Bus attendant shall be assigned to ESE routes when necessary and when possible. . . . * * * D. The ESE Bus Attendant * * * . . . . His regular assigned seat should be at the rear of the bus to facilitate student observation and behavior management. Assists the bus driver, parents, and school personnel in loading and unloading students at bus stops and school centers, as necessary and as directed. . . . 5. Assists the bus driver and students in following the school bus rules and procedures. * * * Assures that all seat belts, wheelchair securements, and occupant restraints are put away or locked in the seats when not in use to avoid safety hazards. Shall be alert to student passenger needs at all times, getting up to assist students in route, providing directions to students, and maintaining order. However, unless attending to a student's needs, the attendant shall remain seated at the rear of the bus when the bus is in motion. * * * 11. Performs other relevant duties as required, such as securing wheelchairs, securing students in their occupant restraints, cleaning up students, helping the driver clean up the bus, putting windows up and down, safely securing carry-on items, securing wheelchair trays, and assisting the driver in performing the Pre-Trip and Post- Trip Inspections. * * * 14. Shall be thoroughly familiar and perform in accordance with the training Handbooks of this School District: School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook; and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook. The Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, which is referenced in the SDSBA Handbook, stated the following, among other things, regarding the job responsibilities of "ESE Bus Attendants": Overview of the Job of the Bus Attendant . . . . The Bus Attendant assists the Bus Driver with bus cleanliness, emergency situations, pre-trip and post-trip bus safety inspections, and knowing the route. * * * Preparing for Daily Trips * * * Check the wheelchair securement and occupant restraints for proper functioning. . . . Help the Bus Driver perform the pre-trip inspections. Help the Bus Driver clean up the bus. * * * Safely secure any loose items. Make sure that seat belts, wheel chair securements, and occupant restraints are put away or locked in the seats when not in use in order to avoid hazards. Working with Students A major duty that is required of a Bus Attendant is to care for students while they are on the bus. This means that you are to get out of your seat as necessary to be sure that students are safe, following the bus rules, and are not in any physical, health, or medical danger. You also must assist the Bus Driver, parents, and school personnel with loading and unloading of students at bus stops and school centers. You will do this as necessary and as directed. Specifically Bus Attendants must: Assist all pre-school students up and down the bus stairwell. Assist physically impaired students up and down the bus stairwell. Help any student who needs your assistance getting onto/off the bus. Open and close the bus lift door and assist students who are in a wheelchair onto/off the lift in the absence of a parent or school person, or when a parent/guardian cannot help due to extenuating circumstances. Operate the wheelchair lift. Secure wheelchairs, and secure students in their occupant restraint systems. Clean up students and the bus when students have soiled themselves. Help the students to follow the bus rules and procedures. Be alert to student passenger needs at all times. Give assistance to students, provide direction to them and help to maintain order on the bus. * * * Where you place yourself on the bus is important. It is generally recommended that a Bus Attendant sit at the back of the bus, which allows you to watch the students in front of you. . . . Article 17 of the SEIU Contract addresses "[d]iscipline of [e]mployees" and provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable School Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless, there is another reasonably related act by the same employee within a twenty four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable law. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Respondent has been disciplined by the School Board on previous occasions for failing to properly perform her job duties as an ESE school bus attendant. On August 26, 2008, Respondent received a verbal reprimand with written notation "for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under [her] care as a bus attendant." The letter advising her of such disciplinary action read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a verbal reprimand with written notation for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under your care as a bus attendant. Specifically, on June 6, 2008, during your pre-disciplinary meeting you stated that you take a nonprescription medication that makes you sleepy. Furthermore, the review of two (2) videos from buses that you served as an attendant revealed you were asleep and not seated in the rear of the bus while students were being transported. Additionally, these acts w[ere] confirmed by Ms. Evangelina Patterson who stated that you have fallen asleep on every route that you served as an attendant on her bus. Your conduct reflects a failure to exercise the best professional judgment. In addition, you compromised the safety and well-being of a student that you were responsible for monitoring by failing to be alert and properly positioned to carry out your duties as an attendant. This behavior is not permissible according to The School District of Palm Beach County, Transportation Department School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, Sec. X D.8 and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Attendants Handbook Chapter II. Furthermore, you are directed to desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This letter of verbal reprimand with written notation will be placed in your District personnel file. Please be advised that the above referenced case and related investigative file is considered to be closed. Pursuant to Section 1012.31, Florida Statutes, when an investigation is concluded, all materials related to the investigation shall be treated as a public record, subject to disclosure upon request, minus any allowable exemptions. In addition, you have the right to inspect this public record and to submit any written rebuttal information for enclosure into the public record within ten days after receipt of this letter. On October 28, 2008, Respondent was given a written reprimand "for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under [her] care as a bus attendant." This written reprimand was in the form of a letter, which read as follows This correspondence is being given to you as a written reprimand for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under your care as a bus attendant. Specifically on October 22, 2008, during your pre- disciplinary meeting you stated that you were not fully alert while serving as an attendant on Route E536. Furthermore, a review of the video from this bus revealed that you were asleep while students were being transported. Your conduct reflects a failure to exercise the best professional judgment. In addition, you compromised the safety and well-being of a student that you were responsible for monitoring by failing to be alert and properly positioned to carry out your duties as an attendant.. This behavior is not permissible according to The School District of Palm Beach County, Transportation Department School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, Sec. X D.8 and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Attendants Handbook Chapter II. Furthermore, you are directed to desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This written reprimand will be placed in your District personnel file. Please be advised that the above referenced case and related investigative file is considered to be closed. Pursuant to Section 1012.31, Florida Statutes, when an investigation is concluded, all materials related to the investigation shall be treated as a public record, subject to disclosure upon request, minus any allowable exemptions. In addition, you have the right to inspect this public record and to submit any written rebuttal information for enclosure into the public record within ten days after receipt of this letter. Notwithstanding (and in brazen disregard of) the reasonable directive contained in this written reprimand that she "desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future," less than three months later, on the morning of January 22, 2009, Respondent was once again inattentive while on duty as an ESE school bus attendant. The bus to which she was assigned that morning was Bus #0691, which was driven by Evangelina Patterson. There was an operational video camera (with audio), mounted in the front of the interior of the bus, which captured what occurred on the bus that morning. At 8:08 a.m., Bus #0691 arrived at the school to which the three students then on the bus were being transported. The students unfastened their seat belts, got out of their seats, and exited the bus. Instead of escorting the students off the bus, Respondent stayed in her seat, put her jacket over her face, and leaned her head against the window in an admitted effort to get some rest. She remained essentially in this position for at least the next 18 minutes, keeping her jacket over her face the entire time, except for a brief moment (at approximately 8:16 a.m.) when, startled by a tap on the leg from the driver, Ms. Patterson, who was trying to rouse her, she temporarily removed the jacket. During this 18-minute period, without Respondent's assistance, Ms. Patterson did her post-trip inspection and readied the bus for its next trip that morning. On this next trip, the bus picked up three students and transported them to their high school. For at least the last seven or eight minutes of the trip, none of the three students was wearing a seat belt, a situation that Respondent did nothing, during that time period, to try to correct. One of the three unbelted students (seated three rows in front of Respondent) had his back facing the window and his left lower leg and foot in the aisle. The student's book bag was also in the aisle, immediately next to his left foot, so that the entire width of the aisle was blocked. For almost all of this seven or eight-minute period at the end of the trip, Respondent's eyes were closed and her head was bobbing back and forth. She had no interaction with the students on the bus. After the bus arrived at the school, Respondent walked behind the students as they exited the bus. As she passed by the camera in the front of the bus, Respondent looked like she had just woken up, with her eyes appearing to be adjusting to the light. Respondent has demonstrated, through her actions, that she cannot be depended upon to be alert and attentive at all times while on duty and to otherwise discharge her job responsibilities as a school bus attendant in a manner that will ensure the safety of the students in her care and that will not expose the School Board to liability. Consequently, her continued employment as a school bus attendant constitutes a real and immediate danger to the School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 23rd day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Vicki L. Evans-Pare, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Aikeea Howell 5145 Caribbean Boulevard, Apt. 1027 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's employment should be terminated by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the School Board was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Volusia County, Florida. Respondent, Tamika Whitaker, began working as a bus driver for the School Board in 2002. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Superintendent's Statement of Charges, Respondent was assigned to the bus route of Riverview Learning Center. In order to be employed as a school bus operator, Respondent had to undergo sixty hours of initial training, consisting of thirty-two hours of classroom training reviewing rules, policies, and procedures, and twenty-eight hours of training on the school bus. Respondent was also required to obtain a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) with a passenger endorsement. This allows the bus operator to drive a bus that is approximately 40 feet long and 10 feet wide, weighs 24,000 to 26,000 pounds unloaded, and can carry approximately 77 passengers. School bus operators are required to know and abide by all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to operating school buses, as well as all policies, practices, and procedures of the School Board. During her initial training, Respondent was provided a copy of the School Board's Student Transportation Services Procedural Manual and was trained regarding the procedures therein. Each time a change is made to the Manual, bus drivers are provided copies of the changes. In addition to her initial training, pursuant to Florida Department of Education rules, Respondent was required to complete eight hours of recertification training every year. The recertification training is designed to educate transportation staff on any new laws, rules, and regulations, and on policies, practices, and procedures of the School Board. At the March 2010 recertification training, changes to U.S. Department of Transportation's interpretation of federal regulations were discussed. Under the revised interpretation, texting while driving would be prohibited.1/ On May 4, 2010, Respondent's afternoon bus route was completed approximately 40 minutes later than usual. Because such a delay is unusual, the School Board investigated the delay pursuant to standard practices. This included review of the GPS report for the bus Respondent was driving, review of the video for the bus, and inquiry to the Student Transportation Services dispatch office. Greg Akin is the Director of Student Transportation Services for the School Board. He asked Patricia Rush, lead driver at the New Smyrna terminal, to review bus video of Respondent from her May 4, 2010, route to determine the cause for Respondent's delay. By accident, Ms. Rush watched a video from a different day, and saw actions of Respondent which Ms. Rush determined to be unsafe. Specifically, Ms. Rush described what she saw, "driving with no hands . . . driving with her elbows . . . using the cellular telephone . . . drinking out of a mug. There were students on board. I was just kind of shocked that she was doing that." Ms. Rush's concern regarding the use of the mug was that it was a large mug and appeared to Ms. Rush to block Respondent's face when she raised it to drink out of it while driving. Ms. Rush reported what she saw on the video to William Ralys, an area manager, who asked her to continue to review bus videos of Respondent and to archive what she saw. Ms. Rush reviewed the bus video of Respondent's routes on May 4, 2010, and observed Respondent pull over for a long period of time and use her cellular telephone. She also viewed the bus video of Respondent's routes on May 6, 2010, and observed Respondent using her cellular telephone while operating the bus with students on board. An internal investigation was conducted during which bus videos of several days of Respondent's routes were viewed by Mr. Akin, Assistant Director of Student Transportation Services Chip Kent, and by Mr. Ralys. Mr. Akin wrote a detailed chronology of what he observed Respondent doing while operating the school bus on April 30, 2010; May 3, 2010; and May 4, 2010. Bus video of Respondent's routes shows Respondent placing a call and talking on her cellular telephone while operating a school bus at approximately 4:00 p.m. on May 3, 2010. Respondent's cellular telephone records show she sent and received numerous text messages during her routes on that date.2/ Bus video of May 4, 2010 shows Respondent checking her cellular telephone, placing a call, and talking on the phone while operating the school bus. At approximately 3:32 p.m., the video shows Respondent talking on the phone regarding a personal matter. She told the person to whom she was speaking to "hold on, let me turn, hold on." Respondent then lowered her cellular telephone to her lap and waved out the window. Respondent then resumed her telephone conversation after turning. Also on May 4, 2010, the bus video of Respondent shows, and Respondent acknowledged, that she spent approximately 42 minutes stopped at a location, the library, which is not part of her route assignment. During this time, she again used her cell phone for talking and messaging for personal reasons. Students were not on the bus at this time, but Respondent was still "on the clock." Respondent's cellular telephone records for May 4, 2010, show that she sent and received numerous text messages while on her routes. Bus video for May 6, 2010, and her cellular telephone records, show Respondent using her cellular telephone to read and type text messages while operating the school bus with students on board, as well as to make phone calls. Bus video shows Respondent drinking from a large pink mug or container on multiple days while operating the school bus. Respondent has used this large mug for seven years and had not previously been disciplined for using it, nor had anyone told her to stop using it while driving her routes. Students on Respondent's bus were aware of her text messaging and complained to her about it. The bus video of May 6, 2010, shows Respondent holding her cellular phone in one hand while driving students. She appears to be reading incoming texts and texting while driving. She then pulls over to text message, at which time the students complain. One student said "We gotta pull over so you can text." He also said, "Oh, this is great, and "Drop me off . . . I can walk faster." Another student said to Respondent, "You can text and drive at the same time, I don't mind." The first student then offered to text message for Respondent, but she retorted, "You can't spell." Respondent presented evidence of another School Board employee, Sandra McDavid, a bus attendant, who was disciplined for not properly securing seat belts to wheel chair students and for talking on a cellular phone while operating the wheel chair lift while loading a wheel chair student. Ms. McDavid was suspended without pay for 20 days. Respondent argues that Ms. McDavid's case is similar to Respondent's, yet Respondent is receiving much harsher disciplinary action.3/ In a letter dated May 7, 2010, the Assistant Director of Student Transportation Services notified Respondent that her driving duties were temporarily suspended pending the outcome of an investigation. On June 17, 2010, Mr. Akin sent a letter to Respondent notifying her that she would be recommended for termination from employment. The letter was accompanied with the Statement of Charges signed by Superintendent Smith. At hearing, Mr. Akin noted that Respondent's case "is the first time [he] ever [saw] a case that involves this many issues on repeated days." On June 20, 2010, Respondent requested a hearing on her termination which gave rise to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Volusia County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Renaissance Charter School, Inc., and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, can be required by the St. Lucie County School Board ("School Board") to offer regular school busing to all eligible charter school students residing more than two miles from the charter school. Whether Petitioner, Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, breached its contract with the School Board by not providing transportation to students in accord with the parties' charter school contract and Florida Statutes. Whether School Board Policies 3.90 and 8.31 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the School Board has charter busing policies which amount to illegal, unadopted rules under chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Renaissance Charter School, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Renaissance Charter School, Inc., currently owns and operates two charter schools in St. Lucie County: Renaissance Charter School at Tradition and Renaissance Charter School at St. Lucie. The School Board is the "sponsor" of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition within the meaning of the charter school statute, section 1002.33. The School Board's Approval of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's Charter Application and Charter Contract On August 1, 2012, a charter school application was submitted to the School Board by Renaissance Charter School, Inc., on behalf of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. During the charter application and approval process, the School Board consistently contended that charter schools in St. Lucie County are required by law to offer regular school busing to all eligible students residing more than two miles from their charter school.1/ On September 17, 2012, the School Board's Charter School Evaluation Team recommended approval of the Renaissance Charter School at Tradition charter school application, subject to the charter school providing "a viable transportation plan that meets statutory requirements once a school site has been finalized." On May 14, 2013, the School Board, at a regular board meeting, unanimously approved its charter contract with Renaissance Charter School, Inc., for Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. The Renaissance Charter School at Tradition charter contract became effective upon approval by the School Board at its May 14, 2013, meeting. The term of the charter contract is five years, commencing on the first day of the 2013-2014 school year, and ending on June 30, 2018. The School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition have a valid and binding charter school contract that is still in full force and effect. Applicable Transportation Provisions of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's Charter Contract Section 6 of the charter contract between the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, which governs student transportation, provides as follows: SECTION 6: TRANSPORTATION Cooperation Between Sponsor and School: The School shall provide transportation to the School's students consistent with the requirements of Part I.E. of Chapter 1006, and Section 1012.45, F.S. The School may contract with the Sponsor to provide transportation service. Reasonable Distance: Transportation will not be a barrier to equal access for all students residing within the District, and the School shall provide transportation to all students residing in the District subject to the limitations in this Section 6.B. Students residing within two miles of the school will be expected to furnish their own transportation, except that certain students, as specified in Section 1006.21, F.S., for example students with disabilities and elementary grade students who are subject to specified hazardous walking conditions, must be provided transportation, regardless of the distance from the school. For students who are geographically isolated, or who are unable to be transported on a school bus due to disabilities, the School will offer reimbursement to eligible parents residing within the District. This parental reimbursement shall be equivalent to the monies provided by the Sponsor to the School for transportation of the student. At the time of student application for enrollment, the School shall be responsible for informing parents of the transportation options available, including the reimbursement amount available in lieu of provided transportation to qualifying students. Compliance with Safety Requirements: The School shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable transportation safety requirements. Unless it contracts with the Sponsor for the provision of student transportation, the School is required to ensure that each school bus transporting the School's students meets applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and other specifications. The School agrees to monitor the status of the commercial drivers' licenses of each school bus driver employed or hired by the School (hereafter "School Bus Drivers") unless it contracts with Sponsor to provide such services. The School will provide the Sponsor, via the Charter Schools Support Department, an updated list each quarter of all School Bus Drivers providing commercial driver's license numbers, current license status and license expiration dates. Fees: The School may not charge a fee for transportation to which the student is entitled pursuant to state law. The School shall reimburse parents for parent-provided transportation costs if the student is legally entitled to transportation. Private Transportation Agreement: In the event the School will be contracting with a third party to provide transportation to its students, the School shall provide a copy of the transportation contract to the Sponsor at least sixty (60) days prior to the initial day of classes. Reimbursement for School Funded Transportation: The rate of reimbursement to the School by the Sponsor for transportation will be equivalent to the reimbursement rate provided by the State of Florida for all eligible transported students. Section 1 B) 4) of the charter contract further provides: 4) Statutory Requirements: The Parties will comply with Section 1002.33, F.S., and any regulations adopted by the State Board of Education or other state agency, or amendments thereto, pertaining to charter schools, and all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to civil rights and student health, safety and welfare. If any conflict exists between the provisions of the approved application or this Charter and any specific provision of law, then the provisions of the law shall prevail. The School shall be bound by amendments to applicable statutes, rules, and regulation, as any such amendments take effect. Unless specifically incorporated herein, the policies of the Sponsor do not apply to the School. However, if the School is statutorily required to have a policy and does not, the Sponsor's policy shall be deemed to apply. Students of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition and the School's Transportation Policy For a student to attend Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, their parents must apply during an open enrollment period, and a lottery system is used to determine who may attend. Parents whose child is selected through the lottery to attend Renaissance Charter School at Tradition are given a certain number of days to accept or decline the seat. Then the process starts over again until all seats are filled or there are no other students on the list. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition opened for the 2013-2014 school year as a K-6 school with 695 enrolled students. Projected enrollment for the 2013-2014 school year was 661 students. However, before the 2013-2014 school year began, projected enrollment had increased to 745 students. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition opened for the 2014-2015 school year as a K-7 school with 890 enrolled students and an enrollment cap of 945 students. For the 2015-2016 school year, Renaissance Charter School at Tradition plans to open as a K-8 school with projected enrollment of 1,075 students. For the 2016-2017 school year, Renaissance Charter School at Tradition plans to open as a K-8 school at maximum capacity of 1,145 enrolled students. The only "A" graded schools in St. Lucie County, Florida, for the 2013-2014 school year were Renaissance Charter School at Tradition and Renaissance Charter School at St. Lucie. There is a waiting list for grades K-3 at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition recognize that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition provides their children with a unique educational opportunity. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition recognize that the decision to enroll their children at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition is a personal choice and not a privilege. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition are active partners in the education of their children. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition does not provide regular school busing to its students who reside more than two miles from the charter school. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition re-evaluates its transportation policies on a yearly basis. Parents of students are informed that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition does not offer regular school busing in informational meetings before they apply for their child to attend the school. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition sign a "Parent Obligation Form," contractually obligating themselves "[t]o provide transportation to and from the school for my child." Parents are required to sign the "Parent Obligation Form" every year as part of the enrollment process. The transportation policy of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, which is given to all parents upon enrollment, apprises parents that the school does not offer regular school busing to students, but that the school agrees to provide "transportation or an equivalent reimbursement" to students in certain legally-defined circumstances. The transportation policy of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition provides as follows: Student Transportation Policy Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's [sic], is and always has been, fully committed to ensuring that transportation will not be a barrier to equal access for all students residing within the District. To date, there are more students attending our newly-opened charter school than was projected for our first year. Although our school does not presently offer busing as a means of school transportation, we are in the process of helping put together parent carpools for those parents who want their children to share rides to and from school. Moreover, transportation, or an equivalent reimbursement, will be provided to any student who falls under any of the following categories [taken from Florida State Statute 1006.21]: Any student in grades K-8 who does not otherwise have access to an adequate educational facility or opportunity. Any student in grades K-6 who are subjected to a hazardous walking condition as defined in s. 1006.23 while en route to or from school. Any student in grades K-8 who have a documented transportation need in their IEP. Any student in grades K-8 who are pregnant, student parents, and/or the children of these students if a teenage parent program is presented at the school. If you feel your child falls within one of the categories listed above, please notify the front office and we will work with you on a case-by-case basis. The School Board rejected the transportation policy of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition because it does not provide for the regular school busing of all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's failure to provide regular bus transportation to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school does not constitute a barrier to equal access to all students. At the hearing, no credible and persuasive evidence was presented that any students lack equal access to an adequate educational facility or opportunity. No evidence was presented that any students are subject to hazardous walking conditions while en route to or from the charter school. There is one student who enrolled on January 20, 2015, who has a transportation need documented in their individual education plan, but the child's parent has chosen to provide transportation. No evidence was presented of any students who are pregnant or who have given birth to any children. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition opens at 6:00 a.m. and closes at 6:00 p.m. There are before-and-after- care private buses that take students off-site to other organizations, such as to karate and the Boys and Girls Clubs. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition also encourages parents' use of carpooling their children to and from school. The School Board's position is that carpooling is not a viable transportation option for the charter school. At Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, one parent has decided to run a private busing service, but no other parents have chosen to use the services of that private bus.2/ The Charter Contract and Transportation Policy Do Not Require Petitioners to Transport by Regular School Bus All Students Residing More Than Two Miles From the Charter School The parties' dispute centers on whether the School Board can require Renaissance Charter School at Tradition to offer regular school bus transportation, to and from the school, for all students residing more than two miles from the school. The interests of Petitioners are directly and substantially affected by the School Board's attempt to require that Petitioners transport by regular school bus all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. The parties unsuccessfully mediated their dispute before the Florida Department of Education. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition has not breached its charter contract with the School Board by not providing regular school busing to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. The charter school contract between the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition does not require Renaissance Charter School at Tradition to provide regular school busing to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school.3/ Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's transportation policy is consistent with its charter contract with the School Board. The School Board's Inequitable Treatment of Charter Schools The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the School Board's treatment of Petitioners is inequitable. The School Board has a "no transportation zone," which geographically encompasses approximately one-third of the county. Students of traditional public schools residing in the "no transportation zone" are not provided regular school bus transportation to and from school. The School Board also has a "limited transportation zone." Students of traditional public schools residing in the "limited transportation zone" are provided regular school bus transportation, but only if they attend a school located within the "limited transportation zone." The "no transportation zone" and "limited transportation zone" encompass approximately one-half of St. Lucie County. At the hearing, the School Board conceded that it has different policies for the transportation of traditional public school students and students at magnet schools and attractor schools. The School Board encourages the use of carpools for students of traditional public schools. The School Board's Alleged Unadopted Policy The School Board, in paragraph 20 of its counter- petition filed in Case No. 14-3267, specifically states: "The School District's adopted policy is that students who live more than two miles from their assigned school shall be provided school bus transportation." (emphasis added). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the School Board interprets Florida law and its adopted School Board Policies 3.90 and 8.31 to require that all existing and future charter schools within the county provide regular school bus transportation for all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the School Board does not have an unadopted policy that all charter schools within the county must provide regular school busing to all students residing more than two miles from their charter school. The School Board's Adopted Policies The School Board has two adopted policies, School Board Policy 3.90 (dealing with charter schools) and School Board Policy 8.31 (dealing with student transportation). The interests of Petitioner are directly and substantially affected by these policies.4/ Both School Board Policies 3.90 and 8.31 were properly noticed pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Neither School Board Policy 3.90 nor 8.31 is specifically incorporated into the charter agreement between the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. Moreover, according to the School Board, School Board Policy 8.31 applies only in the absence of a viable charter school transportation policy. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to demonstrate that the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition mutually agreed that School Board Policy 3.90, or 8.31, apply to the charter school.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, the Palm Beach County School Board (the School Board or Petitioner), had just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a school bus attendant.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. The authority to supervise the school system includes the hiring, discipline, and termination of employees within the school district. Respondent has been a School Board employee since 2000. From 2000 to approximately 2007, she worked as a paraprofessional in the classroom, where her duties included assisting with exceptional education students. In 2007, she moved from the classroom to a position as a bus attendant, again working with exceptional education students as they were transported to and from school. Because of the population she served, her job included making sure that students were secured in their seats, including those who are transported in wheelchairs. As a bus attendant, Respondent was required to attend training each year at the beginning of the school year. The training included the transport of students with disabilities and the management of student conduct. Respondent was also subject to the guidelines contained in the School District of Palm Beach County Bus Drivers and Bus Attendant Handbook (Transportation Handbook), which reflects policies of the Transportation Department of the School Board and has not changed since 2011. She received a copy of the Transportation Handbook and was trained on the rules and procedures it contains. In chapter 2, section 8 of the Transportation Handbook, it states, “[t]he Bus Driver or Bus Attendant do not have the authority to strike or hit a student or to retaliate if struck or hit, but does have the right to reasonably prevent harm to him/herself.” Chapter 6, section 20 includes the following directions: When you are interacting with special needs students it is important to find out if the student understands that her/his actions are inappropriate or unsafe. It may be that the behavior is related to the particular disability and is not willful or intended behavior. If the disability is at the root of the student’s behavior, discipline may not be appropriate. * * * The bus attendant, as well as the Bus Driver, should learn the names of all students on the bus. Greet them kindly each day. Inquire about how they are feeling, how that did in school that day, etc. Let them know you care about them as people. This helps to set a pleasant and positive tone for the bus trip. Respondent also received training on the School Board’s Code of Ethics Policy, as well as receiving a copy of the policy itself. On April 27, 2010, Respondent electronically signed the Code of Ethics Acknowledgement Receipt indicating that she had received the training and read, understood, and agreed to comply with School Board Policy 3.02, the Code of Ethics. Policy 3.02 specifically defines unethical conduct as including committing any act of child abuse, including physical or verbal abuse; committing any act of cruelty to children or any act of child endangerment; and engaging in misconduct that affects the health, safety, and welfare of a student. Respondent worked on the Royal Palm School route. Royal Palm School is a school that is restricted to special needs students with significant cognitive and physical impairments. All bus routes for Royal Palm School require the use of bus attendants to assist with the students. Respondent chose the Royal Palm School bus route in order to work with Vernessa Edwards, a bus driver with whom Respondent worked for over two and a half years. She was working with Ms. Edwards the day of the incident giving rise to these proceedings. M.S.H. is a special needs student on the Royal Palm School bus route. M.S.H. is approximately 18 years old and suffers from an autism spectrum disorder. He is a large, muscular young man and is non-verbal. At the time of the incident giving rise to this case, M.S.H. was a fairly new student on Respondent’s bus. However, in the short time that he had ridden the bus, he had exhibited some disruptive behavior and both Respondent and Ms. Edwards were somewhat afraid of him. His prior behavior had led Ms. Edwards and Ms. Alexander to request that he ride the bus with a harness in order to restrict his movement. Their request had been added to his IEP (Individual Education Plan), but the harness provided was too small for M.S.H. As a result, while his movement was restricted, it was not as restricted as it would have been if the harness had fit him properly. M.S.H.’s shoes also were removed while he was on the bus in order to prevent him from throwing them to get attention. On October 29, 2015, M.S.H. was a student on the Royal Palm School route in the afternoon. Ms. Edwards had instructed Respondent not to seat any student in front of M.S.H. because of his aggressive behavior. Despite this instruction, Respondent placed a younger female student on the bench directly in front of M.S.H. Bus attendants are instructed to sit at the back of the bus, so that the adults on the bus are in different locations. This policy is implemented so that, in the event that there is an accident, at least one adult would be likely to be available to assist the students. Respondent did not follow this policy, but instead sat near the front of the bus, next to the younger student on the bench in front of M.S.H. At the beginning of the bus route, M.S.H. was fairly quiet. He was carrying a baggie filled with cereal, and seemed content. However, several minutes into the bus route, M.S.H. started rocking back and forth in his seat, and then began banging on the bus window. M.S.H. started flailing his arms around, and tried to reach toward Respondent to hit her with his baggie of cereal. Ms. Edwards called the dispatch officer to report the behavior. At first Respondent ignored him, and stood up to let other students off the bus. When she sat down, she continued to ignore him until he hit her with the cereal baggie. Respondent then snatched the baggie out of his hand, looked at him and after a moment returned the baggie to him. M.S.H. then sat in his seat, relatively quiet, for the next two minutes: however, while Respondent and Ms. Edwards assisted a wheelchair-bound student to exit the bus, M.S.H. resumed hitting the window. Soon after the bus resumed forward motion, M.S.H. once again hit the window, and then started reaching for Respondent with both hands. Respondent made no attempt to soothe him. Instead, she stood up and said to him, in an angry voice, “keep your hands to yourself!” M.S.H. responded by hitting her with the baggie of cereal and by reaching forward over the back of Respondent’s seat toward the young girl sitting next to Respondent. Once again, there was no attempt by Respondent to calm M.S.H. To the contrary, Respondent responded by punching M.S.H., three to four times and yelling at him. While Respondent does not dispute hitting M.S.H., she does not take responsibility for her actions and does her best to minimize them. She claims that hitting the student was not intentional and that it was “just a tap.” The undersigned has viewed the videos of the bus trip several times. It was no tap, and the action taken was definitely deliberate. Respondent hit M.S.H. so forcefully that the sound of the impact could be heard clearly on the bus surveillance tapes, as taken from the front, back, and middle of the bus. Respondent claimed that she was defending the little girl sitting in front of M.S.H. because he had hit her, and the child had cried out. While M.S.H. did reach over the seat toward the younger student, he did not make contact with her because of his harness, and she did not cry out. Respondent also stated that she had never before hit a child on the bus. Respondent has a short memory. The District also presented the bus video from October 21, 2015, slightly more than a week earlier. On that day, Respondent was strapping the wheelchair of another disabled student into place. While she was securing the wheelchair, she was standing to the side of the child’s wheelchair, leaning over him with her arms on either side of him. In short, while perhaps necessary, Respondent was definitely invading the child’s personal space. The child pushed against Respondent’s hand, and Respondent slapped him, telling him not to touch her. There was nothing soothing in the way she reacted to this child, just as there was nothing soothing in the way she reacted to M.S.H. When Respondent denied at hearing that she had ever slapped a child before hitting M.S.H., she was asked about the encounter with the wheelchair-bound child from the week before. The following exchange took place: Q. So, Ms. Alexander, you admit that you hit student M.S.H.? A. Yes. Q. And you hit him more than once? A. Yes. Q. And although you claim it’s not intentional; that it was a reflex, you actually hit him four times? A. I didn’t know how many time I hit him. Like his, to myself I counted four time. I don’t know how many time I did it. It was a quick reaction. I don’t know how many time I did. But I do admit it, that I hit him. Q. But you saw the video? A. I saw it. I was shocked. Q. And you had the opportunity to view the entire video? A. With you, yes. Q. And based on what you saw, it wasn’t a reflex, was it? A. Yes. Lord as my witness, yes. Q. So your reflex was to hit him. But you saw the video. It was more – it was more – A. I know it. When it happened I didn’t know until I saw the video because I did it so fast. Q. You just testified that you were shocked? A. I was shocked. Lord as my witness, I was shocked. Q. You were shocked by your own behavior? A. My own behavior, yes. Q. You testified earlier that you’ve never slapped a student before? A. Never slapped a student before, yes. Q. But in my office you also saw the video that’s been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 20-B where you said the other student in the wheelchair, M, and the video shows you slap his hand and you said don’t touch me? A. I didn’t hear that, but if you said it, it happen. Q. But you saw the video, and you slapped his hand? A. I’m always hitting him like that. I’m with him like that, and he like to kick his feet like that. So it’s your normal course to slap the students like that? A. No, no. I play with him, tease with him. I don’t know-–it just a way I interact with him. There was nothing playful about the way Respondent slapped this child’s hand. Moreover, Ms. Edwards’ reaction when Respondent hit M.S.H. does not reflect the surprise or shock that one would expect if Respondent had in fact never previously slapped a child. Instead, Ms. Edwards’ expression could be described as resigned dismay, more indicative of someone who had, sadly, seen this behavior before, and was hoping not to see it again. Ms. Edwards reported the incident with M.S.H. to her superiors. As a result, Respondent was reassigned from her position as a bus attendant and had no further contact with students. It does not matter whether Respondent’s behavior toward M.S.H. was the first time or the fortieth time she had acted this way. A single case of slapping a child in the manner that Respondent slapped M.S.H. is just cause for termination. While the School Board’s collective bargaining agreement provides for progressive discipline, there is authority for termination where the conduct for which discipline is sought is sufficiently egregious. Respondent had no prior formal discipline, although she had on two occasions received formal counseling and directives regarding aggressive behavior toward co- workers that would violate the School Board’s Code of Ethics Policy. Dr. Elvis Epps, the School Board’s human resources manager, testified that based on the investigation into Respondent’s behavior toward M.S.H., the superintendent recommended that she be terminated because her actions represented a real and immediate danger to the students in the school district and a flagrant and purposeful violation of the reasonable rules of the School Board. Dr. Robert Avossa was hired as superintendent of schools for the school district in June 2015. Since his employment as superintendent, the School Board has consistently terminated employees who have hit a student. It is common knowledge for employees of the School Board that hitting a student is grounds for termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order determining that just cause exists for a 15-day suspension without pay and termination of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 16th day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Kasha Brunson, and whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Maria Colina.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brunson has been employed by the School District since August 20, 1996. She is currently a bus attendant in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Brunson has had excellent performance evaluations. Ms. Colina has been employed by the School District since February 9, 2000. She is currently a bus operator in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Colina has had excellent performance evaluations. Both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPLAC) and the School Board. Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides: "Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause." The SPLAC agreement does not specifically define just cause, but Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides that allegations of misconduct and poor job performance, which could result in suspension without pay or termination of employment, could be investigated, and a recommendation for discipline could be made to the superintendent as a result of the investigation. Provision 7.11 of the SPLAC agreement provides: [D]isciplinary action(s) taken against SPLAC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the provisions of 7.10 of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Colina was the bus operator, and Ms. Brunson was the bus attendant on Bus 134. The bus was assigned to pick up exceptional education students on its morning route to East Lee County High School (East Lee County). The bus has approximately six rows of seats. On December 7, 2010, the bus had two stops for East Lee County and picked up students C.E., a female, and T.T., a male, for delivery to East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. are tenth-grade students; however, they are mentally delayed and function between a fourth and sixth-grade level. In late October 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been advised to keep C.E. and T.T. separated. The students were not to speak to one another, and they were not to sit together. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were not told the reason why they were to keep the students separated, and they both assumed the students had been involved in an argument. On December 7, 2010, the bus arrived at East Lee County approximately 15 minutes prior to the bell ringing. Ms. Brunson, Ms. Colina, and the two students remained on the bus while waiting for the school to open. T.T. was seated in a seat at the rear of the bus across from Ms. Brunson. C.E. was in a seat at the front of the bus directly behind Ms. Colina, five rows in front of Ms. Brunson. T.T. asked Ms. Brunson for permission to change the radio station. She gave permission, and T.T. got up and walked to the front of the bus where he changed the station on the on-board radio. In order to change the radio station, he had to reach across Ms. Colina. Instead of returning to his assigned seat, T.T. sat down next to C.E. in her seat. Neither Ms. Brunson nor Ms. Colina saw T.T. sit next to C.E. At some point, Ms. Brunson observed T.T. in the seat with C.E. She felt that something inappropriate was happening, and she called T.T. back to his seat. Ms. Brunson reported the incident to Dale Maybin (Mr. Maybin), her supervisor for that day, as soon as C.E. and T.T. left the bus. Later in the morning, she also advised Shannan Pugh (Ms. Pugh), who was the paraprofessional who was supervising C.E. and T.T. at their work site. She told Ms. Pugh that, when T.T. stood up from C.E.'s seat, she saw C.E.'s head "pop up." In addition to the East Lee County delivery, Bus 134 was assigned to a route for students at Manatee Elementary School (Manatee). The Manatee route began after the completion of the East Lee County route. On the morning of December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been assigned two additional students to the Manatee route beginning on December 9, 2010. At the time of the incident involving T.T. and C.E., both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina claim that they were doing paperwork related to the assignment of two new students. Bus drivers are given 15 minutes each morning and 15 minutes each afternoon to do a pre-trip inspection and to do paperwork. The paperwork involved in adding the two students to the bus route was minimal. The students' names would be added to the seating chart, and the students' names and I.D. numbers would be added to a Medicaid form. Once the bus arrived at Manatee where the students were to be delivered, the driver would receive additional information from the school and fill out a TR-1 form and get an emergency information card, which was to be placed in the bus. At the time of the incident on December 7, 2010, the only paperwork that needed to be done would be to add the names of the new students to the seating chart and to place the students' names and I.D. numbers on the Medicaid form. Although Ms. Colina had the responsibility of completing the paperwork, she and Ms. Brunson divided the paperwork. The longest time that it should have taken each person to do the paperwork was a couple of minutes. Respondents claim that they were unable to adequately supervise the students because of attending to paperwork is not credible. The amount of time that it would have taken to do the paperwork was minimal and should not have precluded Respondents from keeping an eye on the students. Additionally, Respondents should not have been doing their paperwork at the same time. Obviously, if both Respondents are doing paperwork at the same time, no one is watching the students. Because Respondents were doing paperwork does not relieve them of the responsibility of adequately supervising the students and keeping the students separated. The reason that C.E. and T.T. were separated stemmed from an incident in October 2010, when C.E. and T.T. had engaged in inappropriate activity during a work study program. C.E., T.T., and five other students were assigned to work off-campus at a grocery store. The students were supervised by two paraprofessionals from East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. left the area in the grocery store where they were assigned and went into the men's restroom together. C.E. admitted having sexual contact with T.T. while in the men's restroom. School officials changed the classroom and work study schedules of the two students to eliminate contact between the students. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were aware that C.E. and T.T. no longer went to the work site on the same days. No disciplinary actions were taken against the two paraprofessionals as a result of the incident at the grocery store. From late October 2010 to December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina kept C.E. and T.T. separated while on the bus, and the students did not engage in any inappropriate contact on the bus until the incident at issue. Respondents claim that they would have been more diligent in supervising the students if they had known that the reason that the students were being separated was for previous sexual misconduct. This reasoning for failure to adequately supervise is no excuse. Respondents should have adhered to their charge of keeping the students separated no matter the reason for the students being separated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that there is just cause to discipline Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina and suspending Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina without pay from March 8, 2011, to January 1, 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, 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 28th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent engaged in violence in the workplace, breached the responsibilities and duties of an employee, and imposed physical discipline in violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07; and, if so, whether Petitioner should suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay from her position as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for operating public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the District), and disciplining employees within the District when necessary. Petitioner employs Respondent as a school bus driver within the District subject to rules and regulations of the School Board promulgated pursuant to Section 1012.23, Florida Statutes (2002); and subject to the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (the Contract). Petitioner has employed Respondent as a school bus driver within the District for approximately ten years. Petitioner trains school bus drivers, including Respondent, in procedures to follow when students become disruptive or unruly while traveling in a school bus. Petitioner directs drivers to stop the school bus on the side of the road until the students calm down. If necessary, the driver must then radio or telephone a supervisor or the police for further assistance. On October 8, 2002, Respondent drove a school bus for the purpose of taking students home following an after school activity at Coral Reef Senior High School. Respondent was substituting for the regular bus driver. It was dark, and Respondent was unfamiliar with the bus route. Respondent drove the school bus in a manner that endangered the physical safety of the students in the bus. Respondent instructed the students to walk to the front of the bus when their stop was near and to tell Respondent where to stop the bus. Respondent repeatedly applied the brakes of the bus with sufficient force that the students, who stood in the aisle to give Respondent instructions, were thrown into the seats or forward in the aisle. Respondent engaged in other behavior that endangered the physical safety of the students. Respondent's driving pattern of abrupt stops continued until only a few students remained on the bus. One student, identified in the record as C.C., became angry when Respondent missed the student's stop. When C.C. was stepping down to get off the bus, C.C. realized she had dropped her purse, asked Respondent to turn on the light, and Respondent complied. C.C. walked back up the steps of the bus to retrieve her purse and called Respondent a "bitch." Respondent responded by saying, "You a bitch." Respondent violated relevant procedures for defusing disruptive situations, endangered students riding on the bus, and threatened students. Contemporaneously with the exchange between Respondent and C.C., Respondent stopped the bus in the middle of the road, rather than the side of the road and turned off the engine. Respondent did not attempt to defuse the situation and did not contact a supervisor or the police. Rather, Respondent unbuckled her seat belt, approached C.C., and participated in a physical altercation with C.C. Respondent's conduct exposed other students in the school bus to physical harm. The other students came forward to separate Respondent and C.C. A student identified in the record as Z.G. tried to grab Respondent from behind, and female students tried to stop C.C. Respondent threw her walkie-talkie at C.C., but hit Z.G. No student other than C.C. hit Respondent. Respondent threatened the students riding on the school bus at the time of the altercation with C.C. Respondent stated that she was going to "kill" the students and that she had a son who was going to "bury" them. Respondent sat down in the driver's seat and drove the school bus to the Cutler Ridge Police Station. Respondent told police that the students on the bus attacked her. At the police station, Respondent did not telephone the supervisor on duty for the District. Rather, Respondent telephoned her daughter and Ms. Shirley Morris, a coworker and friend (Morris). Morris paged Aned Lamboglia (Lamboglia), the supervisor on duty. Lamboglia spoke to Respondent by telephone. Lamboglia was surprised at the assertion that students on the school bus attacked Respondent because incidents involving a student attacking a bus driver are "extremely rare." A suspension without pay for 30 days is reasonable under the circumstances. Although violence in the workplace is an egregious offense that is aggravated because it involves students, Respondent has no prior history of discipline. There is no pattern of violent behavior. The proposed penalty is consistent with the progressive discipline agreed to in the Contract. Other than this incident, Respondent has an exemplary work history, and Petitioner does not wish to lose Respondent as an employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and suspending Respondent from her employment for 30 days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Mary Jill Hanson, Esquire Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. 105 South Narcissus Avenue, Suite 510 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Melinda L. McNichols, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a bus driver for approximately six years. The terms and conditions of Respondent's employment are controlled by the Official Agreement Between The Seminole County School Bus Drivers' Association, Inc., and The School Board Of Seminole County Sanford, Florida (the "collective bargaining agreement" or "CBA"). Under the collective bargaining agreement, Respondent can not be disciplined, including reprimand, suspension, or termination, except for just cause. Mr. Ricky Dale Saunders is one of several area managers employed by Petitioner. In 1995, Mr. Saunders was Respondent's immediate supervisor. Mr. Saunders scheduled a meeting with Respondent for February 1, 1995. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss complaints by parents concerning Respondent's treatment of students on his school bus. Respondent attended the meeting with two union representatives. All of those in attendance were seated around a conference table. Before Mr. Saunders could discuss the parental complaints, Respondent complained that Mr. John Nault, another bus driver, had moved Respondent's bus in the school compound the day before. Mr. Saunders stated that he had authorized Mr. Nault to move Respondent's bus. Respondent accused Mr. Saunders of lying and became angry. Respondent stood up, leaned forward, and told Mr. Saunders that he would ". . . kick his mother-fucking ass." In March 1995, Petitioner suspended Respondent for 5-days without pay. Petitioner initially proposed a 10-day suspension, but agreed to a 5-day suspension after Respondent's union representatives protested that Respondent had no prior discipline that warranted a 10-day suspension. Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Lake Brantley High School and issued a directive to Respondent. The directive stated that Respondent's conduct on February 1, 1995, was unacceptable and that Petitioner would seek to terminate Respondent if Respondent ever engaged in such conduct again. In the 18 months between March 1995, and September 1996, Respondent had satisfactory evaluations. He encountered no problems on the job. Respondent had a number of problems with students on his bus during the 1996-1997 school year. During the first two weeks of school, Respondent met with Mr. Thomas Murphy, Assistant Principal of Lake Brantley High School, to request assistance in resolving the discipline problems on Respondent's bus. Mr. Murphy assigned Mr. Randolph Harvey, the school security officer, to assist Respondent in preparing a seating chart for Respondent's bus. Mr. Harvey and Respondent went to the bus and began the seating chart. Mr. Harvey and Respondent obtained the names of approximately 10 students. The names of the remaining students were not obtained because the students had to go to class. Mr. Harvey stated that he would continue to assist Respondent each day until the seating chart was complete. However, Mr. Harvey never returned to complete the seating chart. Respondent continued to encounter problems on his bus and continued to seek the assistance of Mr. Harvey. Mr. Harvey did not assist Respondent in completing the seating chart. Mr. Harvey periodically took disruptive students off the bus and spoke to them about their behavior. He then released them to go to class. Mr. Harvey never provided Respondent with the names of the disruptive students or assisted Respondent in obtaining their names. On September 17, 1996, during the ordinary course of his job duties, Respondent transported students in his school bus to Lake Brantley High School. At about 7:00 a.m., a disturbance occurred among three students. Respondent drove the bus a short distance to a place where he could stop the bus safely. Respondent stopped the disturbance and, by radio, asked for assistance. The dispatcher told Respondent that someone would meet Respondent at the bus ramp. When Respondent arrived in his bus at the bus ramp, Mr. Harvey met Respondent at the ramp. Mr. Harvey talked with the disruptive students and ushered them off the bus but did not provide any of their names to Respondent. The disruptive students were taken to Mr. Murphy's office. Mr. Murphy discussed the incident with the students out of the presence of Respondent. Mr. Murphy determined that no fight occurred on the bus and sent the students to class. On the afternoon of September 17, several students on Respondent's bus became unruly. They were upset that some students were taken to Mr. Murphy's office. They used inappropriate language and made inappropriate statements. On the morning of September 18, 1996, a disturbance occurred on Respondent's bus for the third time in 72 hours. Respondent, by radio, requested assistance from Ms. Josephine DeLude, an area manager for Petitioner and Respondent's supervisor. Respondent reported that three students were rude, called him the "F" word, and were out of their seats and screaming. He asked Ms. DeLude for assistance in getting the names of the disruptive students. Ms. DeLude met Respondent as he drove his bus into the bus ramp area. At the direction of Ms. DeLude, Respondent drove the bus to the front of the school. Respondent got out of his bus and waited at the front of the school while Ms. DeLude went to find someone to assist Respondent in getting the names of the disruptive students. On her way, Ms. DeLude met Mr. Harvey coming out of the school. Ms. DeLude asked Mr. Harvey for his help in obtaining the names of the students. Mr. Harvey said, "Oh no, not him again. I've been on that bus every day since school started. He doesn't know how to handle those students." 1/ Mr. Harvey then turned back into the school for the assistance of Mr. Murphy. Ms. DeLude instructed Respondent to release all of the students from the bus except the three disruptive students. By the time the other students were off the bus, Mr. Harvey returned with Mr. Murphy. Mr. Harvey said to Mr. Murphy, "He's always having problems, he does . . . he has an attitude." Ms. DeLude turned to Mr. Harvey and asked, "If he's always having problems, why hasn't one student been removed off the bus?" Ms. DeLude was standing between Respondent and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy said, "We've had problems with him, the kids complain, he has an attitude, he has an attitude towards the kids. . . . We have had trouble since day one with this bus. The driver has an attitude towards the kids." Mr. Murphy then requested Respondent to provide the names of the disruptive students. Respondent became angry. He yelled at Mr. Murphy, calling him an "idiot", "stupid", and an "asshole." Mr. Murphy said, "See, this is the attitude I'm talking about." Respondent became out of control. He stepped around Ms. DeLude and stood within a few inches of Mr. Murphy's face. Respondent became very red in the face. He pointed his finger in Mr. Murphy's face, and repeatedly yelled that Mr. Murphy was an "idiot" and "stupid." Mr. Murphy told Respondent to get his finger out of his face, and Respondent ". . . stood back a ways." Ms. DeLude stepped between Respondent and Mr. Murphy to separate the two. Respondent yelled that he was going to "kick" Mr. Murphy's "ass." Mr. Murphy said, "I'll be happy to meet with you somewhere to see who can kick whose ass." Mr. Murphy spoke to Respondent in a normal conversational tone and did not yell at Respondent. Mr. Murphy did not provoke Respondent prior to his quoted statement in the preceding paragraph. Ms. DeLude pushed Respondent toward his school bus. Respondent continued to scream over Ms. DeLude's shoulder that Mr. Murphy was an "idiot." Mr. Murphy directed Respondent not to return to Lake Brantley High School. Mr. Murphy went inside the school. By letter dated September 23, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intent to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order terminating Respondent from his employment as a bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by not hiring the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's Policies 3.10 and 3.11 set forth conditions of employment and requirements for pre-employment medical examinations which must be complied with by "all applicants who are recommended for employment" by the Respondent School Board. The Petitioner was initially employed by the Palm Beach County School Board as a probationary bus driver effective November 3, 1981. On August 18, 1986, the Petitioner submitted his resignation from that position effective June 11, 1986. On September 16, 1988, the Petitioner submitted a new application for employment with the Respondent in the position of school bus driver. Pursuant to School Board policy, the Petitioner was referred to the Occupational Health Clinic for his pre-employment physical examination. The Respondent's application process, which is governed by School Board Policies 3.10 and 3.11, requires that all applicants for employment sign a form which informs the applicants of the employment practice. The information sheet, which the Petitioner executed, has a section wherein the applicants acknowledge that they "must successfully pass health screening administered by the District's Occupational Health Clinic" to be considered for employment. The Manager of the Respondent's Occupational Health Clinic is Ms. Linda Cherryholmes-Perkins. She has held that position since January of 1987. Ms. Cherryholmes-Perkins has a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, a Master's Degree in Nursing, and is licensed as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. As Manager of the Occupational Health Clinic, Ms. Cherryholmes-Perkins oversees the pre-employment process, which all applicants for full-time employment must satisfy. During the Petitioner's pre-employment physical examination, he was tested to insure that he met both the Florida Department of Education Standards and the Respondent's Bus Driver Standards. The Respondent's Bus Driver Standards have been approved by the Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, School Transportation Management Section. An applicant who fails to meet both the Florida Departinent of Education Standards and the Respondent's Bus Driver Standards is ineligible to drive a school bus for the Respondent. The Petitioner knew he had to satisfactorily complete the pre- employment process to be eligible for employment. When the Petitioner was examined in connection with his 1988 application for employment, he was found to be suffering from uncontrolled diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, and gross or morbid obesity. Because the Petitioner had not been previously diagnosed as having diabetes, he was assigned to and was allowed to perform twenty-one hours of probationary services before the Respondent discovered that the Petitioner was not qualified to be a school bus driver. When it was discovered that the Petitioner did not meet the school bus driver requirements, he was placed in a "medical hold" status by the Occupational Health Clinic. The "medical hold" status was for thirty days. During the "medical hold" period the Petitioner was given an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the State of Florida Standards and with the Respondent's Bus Driver Standards. The Respondent accommodated the Petitioner in this regard by providing him with free follow-up testing during the "medical hold" period. At the end of the "medical hold" period, the Petitioner still failed to meet the State and School Board employment standards. During that period the Petitioner also failed to follow his physician's medical prescription. At the conclusion of the "medical hold" period the Petitioner was given a medical denial for the position of school bus driver. The primary reason for the medical denial was the Petitioner's diabetes, which was still uncontrolled. Secondary reasons were the additional health complications resulting from the Petitioner's hypertension and obesity. As a result of the uncontrolled diabetes alone, it was unsafe for the Petitioner to drive a school bus, because patients with that condition are at risk of having cognitive problems. The Petitioner's other problems made it even more unsafe for him to drive a school bus because patients with uncontrolled hypertension are at greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and similar cardiovascular incidents, and the Petitioner's obesity caused him to have a limited range of motion in his spine.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petition For Relief and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon, County, Florida, this 26th day of July, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 Divsion of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael L. Cohen, Esquire Barristers Building 1615 Forum Place, Suite 1-B West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Hazel L. Lucas, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3970 RCA Boulevard, Suite 7010 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Mr. Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Florida Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Ms. Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
