The Issue Whether the placement of Respondent in the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years, the Respondent, Joey Segura (Joey), was classified as an 11th grader and 12th grader, respectively, at Miami Killian Senior High School, Dade County, Florida. On October 20, 1992, Steve Whaley, Joey's D.C.T. teacher, referred Joey to the Assistant Principal, Judith Cooper, for excessive absences. Joey's mother was advised of the absences. Ms. Cooper reprimanded Joey and referred him to Mr. Banaszak, his guidance counselor. On Janaury 7, 1993, Joey's math teacher, Mrs. Rodriguez, referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for being late to class and presenting a bogus pass. Joey refused to serve detentions for the tardies and the pass. Joey was reprimanded and issued two Saturday schools for cutting class and refusing to serve the detentions. A Saturday school is a disciplinary measure used by the school system whereby the student attends class on Saturday. Joey was again referred to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On January 22, 1993, Mr. Whaley referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for excessive absences. Ms. Cooper talked to Joey's mother, reprimanded Joey, and referred Joey to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On January 25, 1993, Mrs. Rodriguez referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for leaving class without permission after Mrs. Rodiguez told him he could not leave. Ms. Cooper called Joey's mother, reprimanded Joey, and referred Joey to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On February 16, 1993, Joey was given a ten-day outdoor suspension for calling Mr. Whaley an "asshole" and a "fucking asshole." Joey was again referred to Mr. Banaszak. On March 23, 1993, Mr. Flipse, one of Joey's teachers, referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for excessive tardiness and refusal to serve detentions. Joey told Mr. Flipse that he did not have to serve detentions. Ms. Cooper called Joey's father and related what was happening. Joey was reprimanded and given a Saturday school. Joey did not serve the Saturday school and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Joey stated he would not serve the indoor suspensions and instead chose to have a three-day outdoor suspension. 8 There was another incident in which Ms. Cooper had to suspend Joey. Joey got angry about the suspension and told Ms. Cooper that she better not mess with him, he would blow up her car. Ms. Cooper informed the principal about the threat and a conference was set with Joey's parents and his teachers. Ms. Cooper had recommended to the principal that Joey be referred to a disciplinary school program. Another conference was held in which an outside counselor hired by the Seguras participated along with Joey's parents and teachers. It was decided that since Joey was undergoing private counseling that he would be given another chance to stay in school and work at improving. During the 1992-1993 school year Mr. Banaszak met with Joey not less than twelve times concerning tardiness and academic difficulties. Joey's final grades for 1992-1993 were four D's and two F's. On September 20, 1993, Mr. Coyle, Joey's D.C.T. teacher, referred Joey to Thomas Jones, the assistant principal, for leaving class without permission. Joey was given a Saturday school. For the first semester of 1993-1994, Joey chose to take a photography class taught by Richard Ladwig. Joey's lack of attendance and his tardiness were problems in Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Ladwig discussed the problems with Joey and issued several detention notices to him. Joey ripped up the detention notices. Mr. Ladwig finally gave Joey an exclusion notice. Instead of going to exclusion hall as he should have, Joey ripped up the exclusion notice, and told Mr. Ladwig that he was going to Ms. Cooper's office. In September, 1993, Joey asked permission to leave Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Ladwig told him that he could not leave class. Joey retorted, "You're pissing me off." In September, 1993, Mr. Banaszak met with Joey and his father to discuss absences and tardies. Joey requested to be transferred out of Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Banaszak told him that it was not the school's policy to transfer a student four weeks into the school semester, and that Joey needed the photography class to meet his fine arts requirement for graduation. On October 11, 1993, Mr. Banaszak met with Joey, his parents, and Mr. Jones to discuss Joey's academic problems. Mr. Banaszak was concerned about whether Joey could graduate. Because of his failed courses he was almost an entire year behind in annual credits. A plan was devised to make up the credits through summer school and night school, thus, enabling Joey to graduate in the fall of 1994. Mr. Banaszak had authorized Joey's taking night classes on other occasions to help make up credits. Although Joey enrolled in the night classes he never recieved any credits, indicating that he either did not attend or did not complete the work. Joey was failing the photography class. He missed several quizzes, missed a lot of notes, resulting in a notebook grade of "F," failed some tests, and sometimes read a newspaper in class rather than doing his assigned work. One of the assignments in the Mr. Ladwig's class was to develop negatives in class and make contact prints from the negatives. Joey did not develop negatives in class. Mr. Ladwig allowed students who failed to do the developing portion of the assignment to have negatives developed outside of class to be used in making the contact prints in class. Joey did bring some negatives to class and make contact prints in class. One of Mr. Ladwig's sixth grade students had been complaining to Mr. Ladwig that someone had stolen his negatives. Mr. Ladwig told the student to take a look at the contact prints to see if any of the prints were made from his negatives. The student identified the prints made by Joey as being made from his negatives. 20 On several occasions, Mr. Ladwig asked Joey to bring his negatives to class. Finally on October 19, 1993, Mr. Ladwig told Joey that there was a dispute over the ownership of the negatives which he had used and told him to go and get the negatives from his locker. Joey got very angry and started to leave the class. At the doorway, Joey stopped and said, "If or when I see you on the street, Dude, I'm going to fucking kill you." The threat was heard by several of the students in the class. 21. Mr. Ladwig referred the matter to Mr. Jones. Later in the day, Joey along with Mr. Jones and Mr. Lewis, the security person, came to Mr. Ladwig's classroom while class was in session. Joey accused Mr. Ladwig of calling him a liar. Mr. Ladwig asked them to leave. On the way out, Joey said, "Ladwig, Dude, I'll deal with you later." 22 Joey gave Mr. Jones the names of several witness and Mr. Jones talked with them. An assault on a staff member is a Group IV violation according to The Secondary Code of Student Conduct, which defines an assault on a staff member as follows: Intentional verbal or physical threat to do violence to a staff member by a student who possesses an apparent ability to do so and in doing so creates a well-founded fear that such violence is imminent. The Secondary Code of Student Conduct provides that the following disciplinary actions be taken for a Group IV violation: Parent contact/parent conference. Administrator/parent conference. Ten-day suspension. Recommendation for expulsion, administrative assignment to Opportunity School Program, or placement in a substance abuse program. Refer criminal acts to the Dade County Public School Police and the local police agency for appropriate legal action. When appropriate, seek restitution or restoration. Mr. Jones reported the incident to the Dade County Police Department. Mr. Jones called Joey's mother and met with Joey's father. Joey was given a ten-day outdoor suspension with a recommendation for explusion. Joey's father asked for a second conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Ladwig so that Mr. Segura could confront the teacher. Mr. Ladwig told Mr. Segura that he thought Joey meant it when he said he was going to kill him. Mr. Jones recommended that Joey be assigned to an opportunity school program rather than being expelled. His recommendation was based on Joey's continuous disruptive behavior, including the last incident with Mr. Ladwig. Joey's grades for the first nine weeks of the 1993-1994 school year consisted of four F's, one Incomplete, and one "C." Joey's behavior of excessive tardiness, verbal assault on his teacher, his continuous defiance of authority, and his disrespect for his teachers interferred with his own learning and the educational process of others. The needs of Joey are not being effectively met by the conventional education programs in the public schools. Joey was assigned to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South in lieu of explusion. This program provides students an opportunity to learn in a small group environment, more counseling on a one-to- one basis, and a more structured environment. Joey did not go to Douglas MacArthur South. He had been attending some adult education classes at night to get credit for classes which he had flunked, but he dropped out when he was assigned to Douglas MacArthur South.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assigning Joey Segura to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6906 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-7 Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as to the number 12 as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, but otherwise accepted in substance that there were referrals for the reasons stated. Paragraphs 9-15: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire School Board of Dade County 450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Miguel Segura 6114 Southwest 127th Place Miami, Florida 33173 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact From 1985 until his suspension on April 22, 1992, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school monitor and was assigned to Kelsey L. Pharr Elementary School. Respondent attended mandatory training sessions for school monitors on March 24, 1989; February 2, 1990; September 20, 1990; February 1, 1991; April 1, 1991; and January 31, 1992. During those training sessions, the job description of a school monitor was reviewed. The school monitors were given suggested guidelines on how to handle situations with students and were provided with scenarios that they might encounter on a daily basis. They were specifically instructed to use the least force necessary to bring a situation under control and to always contact a school administrator for assistance using their hand- held radios before putting their hands on a student. School monitors have never been given the authority to administer corporal punishment. At the end of the school day on February 4, 1992, Respondent observed a male student, Thomas Rolle, attempting to kiss a female student. A few days earlier, Respondent had observed him engaging in that same conduct. Respondent approached Rolle and told him that he could not kiss his girlfriend on school premises. Rolle responded by cursing at Respondent, using profanity and a racially derogatory remark. Rolle then turned and began running away from Respondent. Respondent threw his hand-held radio, striking Rolle behind his ear, causing a laceration which began to bleed. Not knowing that Rolle had been injured, Respondent did nothing to assist him. Further, Respondent did not report the incident to a school administrator, as he had not reported the problem with Rolle a few days earlier. One of Rolle's friends told Rolle that his ear was bleeding, and Rolle became quite agitated. He and his friends proceeded to the school building were they encountered the assistant principal at one of the exit doors to the building. The assistant principal, Gigi Gilbert, saw that Rolle was crying and bleeding. Rolle and his friends told her that Rolle had been "doing something" to a girl, that Respondent had told him to stop, that Rolle then began using profane language, that he started running with Respondent running after him, and that Respondent hit Rolle with the radio which Respondent had thrown. Gilbert sent Rolle to the office to receive first aid. Gilbert signaled to the school principal, June Day, to come to where Gilbert was standing with the group of students. Gilbert advised Day as to what the students were telling her and as to Rolle's injury. Day sent a student to get Respondent, and within moments Respondent came to where Day and Gilbert were standing. The principal told Respondent what the students had reported, and Respondent denied that the incident had occurred. Respondent then asked if he could speak with the principal privately, and Gilbert left them alone. Respondent then admitted to the principal that he threw the "walkie-talkie" at Rolle. Day went to the office and attempted to speak to Rolle about the incident. She was unable to because he was too upset and would only say that he was going to "get him," referring to Respondent. She contacted the School Board's Special Investigative Unit, and an investigator was sent to the school. Respondent admitted to that investigator that he had struck Rolle with the radio. Respondent was arrested and charged with aggravated battery. He subsequently plead guilty to that charge, was placed on probation for a period of eighteen months, and was ordered to pay court costs in the amount of $225. Adjudication of guilt was withheld.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him from his employment with the School Board of Dade County. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-5695 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-11, 13-17, and 19-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald A. Williams, Labor Attorney Mack & Bernstein The School Board of Dade County, Florida 1450 N.E. Second Avenue-Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s employment should be suspended and terminated for the reasons set forth in the Amended Petition for Involuntary Resignation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began her employment with Petitioner as a substitute teacher in November of 1997, and was later hired as a regular teacher in January of 2000. Respondent held a temporary teaching certificate which expired after the time period at issue in this case. Respondent was first assigned to teach at Santaluces High School and was later assigned to Bear Lakes Middle School, where she taught geography. On April 12, 2002, Respondent was injured in the line of duty while attempting to assist another teacher control unruly students. In that incident Respondent fell and injured both her back and her knee. Respondent was authorized by Petitioner’s workers’ compensation administrators to treat with both Dr. Wexler and Dr. Lichtblau for her injuries.1 Following the accident on April 12, 2002, Respondent continued to work at Bear Lakes Middle School until on or about November 11, 2002, when she was placed on a light duty assignment at another location. Respondent had been placed on light duty by Dr. Wexler because he felt it was medically necessary. Thereafter, Respondent was given several light-duty assignments to accommodate her physician-imposed work restrictions, including assignments to Conniston Middle School, Risk Management, JFK Middle School, Gold Coast Community, and the District’s substitute office. Respondent was placed on light-duty assignments by the Palm Beach County School Board (School Board) for a total of more than ten months. The light-duty assignments provided by the School Board are temporary assignments that are made available in lieu of workers’ compensation payments to employees who are able to perform light duty. They are not offered for an indefinite period of time, nor are they offered as a permanent employment option. Following some confused communications about Respondent’s certification status and some further confused communications as to whether Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement and could return to a seven-and-a-half hour per day classroom teacher position, Respondent was offered a job teaching full-time (seven-and-a-half hours per day) at Jeaga Middle School. Respondent was supposed to begin teaching at Jeaga Middle School in September of 2003. On September 10, 2003, Dr. Wexler, one of Respondent’s treating physicians wrote that he agreed with another physician’s assessment that Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement and could work eight hours per day with certain restrictions that could be accommodated in a classroom teaching setting. Later that month, Dr. Wexler explained that there had been some confusion on September 10, 2003, and that he was of the view that Respondent had not yet reached maximum medical improvement and that Respondent’s work hours should be restricted to four hours per day. Respondent declined the offer of the full-time teaching position at Jeaga Middle School and requested that the School Board offer further light-duty work assignments of no more than four hours per day. The School Board promptly informed Respondent that she would not be offered any further light-duty assignments and that if she was not going to accept the full- time position at Jeaga Middle School, she should apply for leave without pay in order to avoid being terminated by the School Board. At an earlier time following her April 12, 2002, injury, Respondent was on leave without pay for a period of time. During that period she received workers’ compensation benefits in lieu of wages or salary. During that period of time Respondent was dissatisfied with the workers’ compensation benefits she received. Because of that prior negative experience, Respondent did not want to again request leave without pay, which would require her to rely on workers’ compensation benefits until she reached maximum medical improvement. Respondent did not accept the full-time position at Jeaga Middle School and did not apply for leave without pay. Respondent did not apply for any other regular employment opportunities with the School Board. Respondent did continue to request assignment to a light-duty position for four hours per day. The School Board advised Respondent on several occasions that she would not be assigned to any further light-duty positions and that it would be in her own best interest to apply for leave without pay to avoid termination from the School Board. As a teacher employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the CTA (CTA Contract). The subject of unpaid leaves is addressed at page 55 of the CTA Contract, which includes the following language: SECTION C - UNPAID LEAVES: GENERAL PROVISIONS All absences of employees from duty shall be covered by leave applications which are duly authorized, a copy of which shall be provided employees upon request. Except for short-term leaves of absence, and intermittent political leave, unpaid leaves shall be timed such that the employee returns at the beginning of a new grading period. Except for extenuating circumstances, Sick Leave without Pay for Personal Illness or Illness/death of a Family Member, for more than ten (10) days, also shall be timed so that the employee returns at the beginning of a grading period. An employee taking an approved unpaid leave shall retain the same contractual and salary credit status as he/she had upon taking such leave and shall be returned to the same school, and within certification, to the same assignment he/she held prior to taking the leave, if said leave is for a duration of twelve (12) months or less. However, an employee while on an unpaid leave shall be subject to the Excessing Procedure and the Lay-Off/Call-Back Procedure of this Agreement the same as if they were not on leave. If these procedures become operative and affect the employee on leave, he/she may not be returned to the same position he/she held prior to taking leave. Likewise, employees while on an unpaid leave maintain their rights to apply for transfers and/or reassignments as provided by this Agreement. * * * SECTION D - UNPAID LEAVES: SPECIFIC PROVISIONS Short Term Leave of Absence - Any employee desiring short term leave of absence shall make written application for such leave to the Principal or immediate supervisor. Except in emergency situation, such applications shall be approved in advance. Leave for emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance, if prompt report is made to the proper authority. The first five (5) requested days of short term leave, whether covered by one (1) or more than one (1) request, will be approved. Requests for short term leave thereafter, regardless of length, will be granted or denied by the District in its discretion. Applications for more than five (5) working days will require that a reason be given and shall be subject to approval by the Superintendent. Employees shall not be gainfully employed during normal working hours while on such leave. Long Term Leave of Absence - A long term leave of absence is permission granted by the Board, at the District’s discretion, for an employee to be absent from his/her duties for specified periods of time with the right of returning to duty on expiration of the leave. Leave shall be officially granted in advance by the District and shall be used for the purpose set forth in the leave application. Such long-term unpaid leave, when granted, will be for the remainder of the school year, unless otherwise approved with the initial leave request. In addition, up to one (1) additional year of leave shall be granted upon receipt of a written request from the employee, unless the employee has not been reappointed in keeping with other provisions of the Agreement for the next school year. Such extension of long-term leave shall be timed such that the employee returns at the beginning of a new grading period. Once an employee has exhausted the leave privileges under this subsection (Long-term Leaves), the employee shall be required to return to duty for a full year before being eligible for another long-term unpaid leave. As a School Board employee, Respondent is subject to applicable School Board rules and regulations, including School Board Policy 3.80 and School Board Directive 3.27. School Board Policy 3.80 addresses unpaid leaves when an employee’s sickness has extended beyond all compensable leave. School Board Directive 3.27 addresses the general topic of separation from employment. Under the caption “Suspension/Termination” the directive provides: 3. The Principal/Department Head may recommend to the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations disciplinary action against an employee if the employee commits one or more of the following offenses, including but not limited to: * * * b. Willful absence from duty without leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes (now § 1012.67, Fla. Stat.). * * * e. Incompetent to perform regular work duties. Incompetency is defined as incapacity to perform due to lack of emotional stability or physical ability; or lack of adequate command of the designated area of work. Employees are also incompetent when they repeatedly fail to perform duties prescribed by law and by this district. [2] Respondent was personally advised on numerous occasions that if she did not apply for a leave of absence, she would be absent without approved leave and would be subject to termination. Respondent was absent without authorization.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 20th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida, as a teacher on continuing contract at Crystal Lake Middle School. Notice of the final hearing was sent to Respondent on January 4, 1983 to her address at 5225 North Dixie Highway, Ford Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The Notice of Hearing which was sent from the Division of Administrative Hearings was not returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Service. The record does not reflect that Respondent made any attempt to contact either counsel for the Petitioner or the Hearing Officer concerning a continuance of these proceedings or providing any explanation for her failure to appear at the final hearing. On May 15, 1980 Ms. Belcher failed to report for work as a classroom teacher without advance notice to the administration of Crystal Lake Middle School as required by school policy. She was absent the entire day and her failure to appear caused considerable administrative difficulty in securing a replacement teacher without prior notification. Her principal at that time, Ms. Jean Webster, sent a memorandum to Ms. Belcher which stated the following: On Thursday, May 15, 1980, you were absent from your job and failed to report that you were going to be absent either to your department head or to me. This is less than responsible action on your part and will be considered an act of insubordination should it happen again. This memo may be considered a written reprimand and will be placed in your personnel folder. The memorandum was received and acknowledged by Ms. Belcher. On October 14, 1982 Respondent was absent from her teaching assignment without leave. She failed to give any prior notice of her absence to the school principal or any other supervisor as required by school policy. The absence of Ms. Belcher was not discovered until one of her students went to another teacher's room to report that Ms. Belcher's unattended students were misbehaving and throwing objects at each other. As a result of the second unauthorized leave of absence without prior notice, her new principal, Mr. Thomas J. Geismar recommended to the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel that Ms. Belcher's contract of employment be terminated. Mr. Geismar's decision to request Ms. Belcher's termination was influenced by her prior conduct on September 23, 1980 when she was discovered by a member of the administration to be falling asleep in front of her class during a regularly scheduled class period. During that time her students were out of control. They made disparaging remarks about Ms. Belcher appearing to be either high or on drugs. The incident was reported to Mr. Geismar who, upon interviewing Ms. Belcher, determined that she was either intoxicated or drugged and was in no condition to teach a class of middle school students. At the time Ms. Belcher attributed her condition to having taken cold medicine. She was sent home in order to recover from whatever was affecting her. On numerous instances, Ms. Belcher fell asleep while on duty in front of her students during the school year 1981-1982. When Ms. Belcher fell asleep her unsupervised students became boisterous and threw things at each other. Prior to falling asleep Ms. Belcher frequently received a back and neck rub from one of her students. After Ms. Belcher's last absence without leave or prior notice on October 14, 1982, it appears that the administration at Crystal Lake Middle School solicited negative comments about Ms. Belcher's teaching behavior. This inference is raised by four letters all dated October 19, 1982 addressed to Mr. Geismar from respectively, J. Kay Betzoldt, Jo Nell Stevenson, Jan Mascia and Walter S. Tilgham. The most serious incident about Ms. Belcher's behavior was raised by Ms. Betzoldt. During fifth period in the last quarter in the 1981-1982 school year, Ms. Betzoldt saw Ms. Belcher in front of her class receiving a "back rub" from one of Ms. Belcher's students. The student was observed standing behind Ms. Belcher reaching forward massaging her breasts. It appeared that Ms. Belcher was not aware of what was happening. When the student realized that Ms. Betzoldt was observing him, he moved his hands to the shoulders of Ms. Belcher. Ms. Betzoldt did not report the incident to the school administration until her letter of October 19, 1982. The contents of the other teachers' letters dated October 19, 1982, were corroborated by the authors' live testimony at the final hearing. They support the allegations against Respondent that on numerous occasions she has slept in the presence of her students when she should have been teaching them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. Saundra Belcher as a continuing contract teacher and cancelling her contract of employment. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cross, Esquire 4540 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Saundra Belcher 5225 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 William T. McFatter Superintendent of Schools Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Donald J. Samuels, Chairman School Hoard of Broward County 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Kimberly Rosario (Respondent), as an employee with the Hernando County School Board (Petitioner or School Board).
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools, grades K through 12, in Hernando County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school- aged children in the county. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat.1/ Rick Markford is the principal at J.D. Floyd K-8 (J.D. Floyd), a school in the Petitioner’s school district. As principal, he has ultimate supervisory authority over all staff members at the school, including custodians. In December 2013, Mr. Markford hired Respondent to serve as a Custodian 1 to work the night shift at J.D. Floyd. Shortly after starting her employment, Respondent’s excessive absenteeism rose to a level where she was taking impermissible leave without pay. As a result, Mr. Markford contacted the School Board’s human resources department for guidance on how to proceed. The School Board has enacted Policy 6.37 to provide the grounds for termination for all educational support and non- certified instructional personnel in its school district. Under Policy 6.37, Group III offenses warrant termination for a first- time violation. Respondent was specifically charged with violating Policy 6.37 Group III offenses “(5) Excessive absenteeism or excessive tardiness” and “(8) Absence from duty without authority, including refusal to report to duty at any time as directed.” Although the Petitioner can proceed directly to termination for a first-time Group III offense, it utilizes a five-step progressive discipline process for excessive absenteeism and absence from duty without authority. The first step is a coaching session with the employee. If the issue continues, the second step is a corrective action plan. The third step is a formal conference with an employee conference report placed in the employee’s file. Step four is a letter of reprimand. And the fifth step is a referral to Human Resources for further action, up to and including termination. In accordance with School Board policy, because of Respondent’s excessive absences, Mr. Markford initiated the five-step process described above. Step 1 occurred on March 7, 2014, when Mr. Markford held a coaching session with Respondent to discuss her absences without pay. She was specifically warned that any further unpaid absences would result in a second meeting and a corrective action plan. On April 17, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to address her excessive absenteeism and issue a corrective action plan in accordance with Step 2. As part of the corrective action plan, Respondent was informed that all future absences for the 2013-14 school year would require a doctor’s note and she would need to directly contact Mr. Markford. Despite the coaching, Respondent’s absences without pay continued, requiring Mr. Markford to initiate Step 3 in a June 23, 2014, meeting with Respondent. The employee conference report reflects that Respondent was absent without pay from May 29, 2014, through June 16, 2014. Petitioner’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, each year. Although Respondent had no entitlement to continued employment beyond June 30, 2014, Mr. Markford decided to reappoint her for the 2014-15 school year to give her a second chance. Because it was a new school year, any further issues with absenteeism would start at Step 1 of the five-step process rather than continuing directly to Step 4. On July 14, 2014, shortly after the start of the new school year, Mr. Markford had to meet with Respondent to initiate Step 1 in the process due to her taking leave without pay on July 2, 3, and 9, 2014. In the corresponding coaching- session note, Respondent was issued a corrective action plan. Respondent’s impermissible absences continued. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to discuss a corrective action plan related to her continued excessive absenteeism, including her absence on July 16, 2014. That same day, Mr. Markford met with Respondent for an Employee Conference Report due to her continued absences without pay, including her absence on July 17, 2014. As reflected in the Employee Conference Report, Respondent was again informed that being in attendance every day was important. Respondent was directed to contact Mr. Markford directly to notify him of any future absences and that she must provide a doctor’s note for such absences. Despite the coaching, Respondent continued to be absent without pay and failed to comply with the corrective action plan. As a result, Mr. Markford issued her a Letter of Reprimand on September 14, 2014. Mr. Markford again explained to Respondent that “[p]unctual and regular attendance is an essential function of [her] job.” In the Letter of Reprimand, which Respondent signed, Respondent was specifically informed that “any further incidents of absenteeism will be considered willful absenteeism and [that Mr. Markford] will recommend that [her] employment with the [School Board] be terminated.” Following the reprimand, Mr. Markford informed the School Board’s human resources office of the issues with Respondent’s excessive absences and identified the disciplinary procedures he had followed. It was only after Respondent had exhibited a clear pattern of absenteeism and had been specifically warned that her continued actions would lead to a recommendation for termination that she filed a complaint against a co-worker alleging harassment. Specifically, on September 26, 2014, Respondent alleged that Christopher Griesbeck, night Custodian 1 at J.D. Floyd, said her “days are numbered here and laughed.” The complaint also referenced an April 2014 incident where Mr. Griesbeck, who was allegedly upset that Respondent was appointed to a day shift instead of him, took her to classrooms she was responsible for and pointed out deficiencies. There was no allegation that the alleged harassment was sexual in nature. Mr. Markford conducted an investigation into the harassment allegations by interviewing Respondent; Vincent Juliano, a Custodian 2 at J.D. Floyd; Mr. Griesbeck; and several Custodian 1s at J.D. Floyd. After completing the investigation, Mr. Markford determined that Respondent’s “complaint of working in a hostile environment is unfounded.” The investigation revealed that, as a result of Respondent’s high absenteeism, there was a degree of resentment and frustration among some of the custodial staff. Mr. Markford took steps to address the issue and developed a plan to limit the interaction between Respondent and Mr. Griesbeck going forward. Mr. Markford met with Respondent to inform her of his findings. On October 17, 2014, Respondent suffered an injury at work when she mis-stepped and twisted her knee, aggravating a pre-existing injury. A workers’ compensation injury report was completed on October 20, 2014, at Mr. Markford’s insistence and Respondent thereafter received treatment. The next day, October 21, 2014, Respondent was cleared to return to work with restrictions for her left knee. Consistent with the restrictions, as well as the restrictions she had over the next couple of months, J.D. Floyd provided her with light-duty work. On December 15, 2014, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work from her workers’ compensation injury with no restrictions. But Respondent was absent without authority on December 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, 2014. The Petitioner’s school district had a vacation break from December 24, 2014, through January 4, 2015. After returning from the break, Respondent’s unauthorized absenteeism continued. On January 6, 2015, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work on January 12, 2015, again with no restrictions. Despite this, Respondent’s high absenteeism and failure to follow the corrective action plan continued. On January 28, 2015, Mr. Markford held a meeting with Respondent because she was absent on January 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2015, without providing a doctor’s note. Mr. Markford explained that he considered Respondent’s actions to be insubordination and the matter would be referred to Human Resources. Respondent’s absences continued. At the time of those continued absences, Respondent would send text messages to Mr. Markford explaining she was not coming to work, and Mr. Markford would respond by informing her that she did not have any leave time and she was required to come to work. She did not comply with the directions. On February 2, 2015, Petitioner’s Director of Human Resources, Dr. Sarah Meaker, wrote a memorandum to the Petitioner’s Equity, Policy, Insurance and Compliance Administrator, Heather Martin, recommending that disciplinary action be imposed against Respondent based on Respondent’s continual absence from work without a doctor’s note. On February 12, 2015, Mr. Markford met with Respondent regarding her continued failure to come to work and non- compliance with the corrective action plan. This was the first workday in February that Respondent showed up to work. Respondent refused to sign any documentation and left work early without authority. On February 13, 2015, Ms. Martin informed Respondent that a pre-determination meeting would be scheduled regarding Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without leave in violation of School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8). Petitioner had difficulty trying to contact Respondent in an effort to move forward with the disciplinary process. In reply to a text message from Mr. Markford informing her to contact Ms. Martin, Respondent responded: “They have my number they can use it.” In preparation for the predetermination meeting, Ms. Martin had a calendar created for the 2014-15 school year which showed the number of days and partial days that Respondent was absent. Specifically, for July 2014, Respondent missed five full days and one partial day; for August 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for September 2014, she missed seven full days and one partial day; for October 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for November 2014, she missed six full days and three partial days; for December 2014, she missed nine full days; for January 2015, she missed 12 full days and five partial days; and for February 2015, through the 18th of that month, she missed 11 full days and one partial day out of the 12 possible work days. The predetermination meeting was held on February 18, 2015. Minutes were kept for the meeting and thereafter transcribed. At the predetermination hearing, Respondent admitted that she was no longer on workers’ compensation because the doctor cleared her as maximum medical improvement (MMI). Respondent offered no valid justification for her excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without authority. Following the meeting, Ms. Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be terminated due to her excessive absenteeism and absence without authority. On February 19, 2015, Petitioner’s Superintendent of schools, Dr. Lori Romano, charged Respondent with violating School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8) based on Respondent “being excessively absent and absent without authority.” Dr. Romano explained there was probable cause for discipline and that she would recommend Respondent’s termination. After Respondent indicated she wished to appeal the recommendation, the matter was transferred to DOAH and an administrative hearing was scheduled. Respondent did not attend the hearing. Respondent did not give advance notice that she would not attend the hearing and she did not explain or provide a reason for her absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent’s employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has sufficient just cause to terminate Respondent, Jacqueline Skinner ("Skinner"), for multiple unapproved absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: Parties' Stipulated Facts At all times pertinent, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a bookkeeper at Central Elementary School. Respondent's supervisor during the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years was Joseph G. Stanley, principal of Central Elementary School. Respondent's supervisor during the 2019-20 school year was Cynthia Kubit, principal of Central Elementary School. At all times pertinent, Christina Norman was an assistant principal at Central Elementary School. At all times pertinent, Ken Kenworthy was superintendent of Okeechobee County Schools. The annual noninstructional employee evaluations of Respondent from the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years showed that Respondent needed improvement in attendance. Pet. Ex. 1. Respondent failed to report for work on June 7, 2019, without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Joseph G. Stanley issued a letter to Respondent dated June 14, 2019, confirming a verbal reprimand; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 2. Respondent failed to report for work on October 29, 2019, without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent dated October 30, 2019; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 3. During February 2020, Respondent continued to have incidents regarding leave and, by letter dated February 20, 2020, Principal Cynthia Kubit recommended disciplinary action against Respondent; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 4. On May 15, 2020, Respondent failed to report to work without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Cynthia Kubit, in the presence of Assistant Principal Christina Norman, called Respondent several times and issued a memorandum of the telephone conversations. Pet. Ex. 6. Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter to Superintendent Ken Kenworthy dated May 18, 2020, recommending that Respondent be terminated; Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. Pet. Ex. 7. By letter dated May 18, 2020, to Respondent, Superintendent Ken Kenworthy informed Respondent that he was recommending to the Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. The letter was hand delivered to Respondent by Assistant Principal Dylan Tedders and Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. Pet. Ex. 8. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.213--Notification of Absence--was in effect. Pet. Ex. 9. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.20--Leave of Absence-- was in full force and effect. Pet. Ex. 10. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.52--Suspension and Dismissal--was in full force and effect. Pet. Ex. 11. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.45--Alcohol and Drug Free Workplace--was in full force and effect. Other Facts Established by the Evidence Skinner was employed pursuant to the Okeechobee County School Board Classified Personnel Contract for the 2019-20 School Year on a continuing basis. Pet. Ex. 18. An employee who has completed the probationary period may be dismissed under the Classified Personnel Contract for just cause. Pet. Ex. 18, p. 15. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, under Public Employer Rights, "[i]t is the right of the Board to direct its employees, to take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work and other legitimate reasons…." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 5. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, the Board is required to follow progressive discipline, the progression of which is as follows: "documented verbal warning; written reprimand following a meeting; suspension; termination." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 13. It was largely undisputed, as acknowledged in the Joint Pre-hearing Statement-Amended, filed September 1, 2020, that Skinner had attendance problems the past several years of her employment, which escalated in the last year of her employment. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner's attendance problems started immediately when Kubit became principal in July 2019 and continued throughout the last year of Skinner's employment. During her last year of employment, from the time period July 1, 2019, through May 14, 2020, Skinner accumulated numerous absences from work. During her last year of employment, Skinner used more leave than she had allocated. This put her leave bank in the negative. Pet. Ex. 19. This was not the first time Skinner used more leave than she had accrued. Her prior supervisor, Dr. Stanley, testified that Skinner would run out of available sick days and then would have to take unpaid leave. During her last year of employment, Skinner failed to attend work approximately ten days and failed to arrange for advance leave with her supervisor. Pet. Ex. 12. Providing advance notice of an absence could have been accomplished by Skinner by calling, texting, or e-mailing her supervisor any time prior to the start of the work day, even a few minutes before. On some of the days when Skinner failed to attend work, arrange for leave, or notify her supervisor, her supervisor, Kubit, nonetheless tried to assist Skinner by not disciplining her for failure to attend work without notice. For instance, Kubit sometimes allowed Skinner to use vacation days when she ran out of sick days even though employees are normally required to arrange for vacation leave days in advance. Kubit did so because she wanted Skinner to come back and work more regularly. Kubit thought it would help Skinner to do so. According to Kubit, Skinner did not provide legitimate excuses for her unauthorized absences. Instead, she just repeatedly apologized and promised to improve her attendance in the future. Skinner candidly acknowledged during her testimony that she had attendance problems and that she had received multiple disciplinary letters for her problems with attendance. Annual Performance Evaluations As part of her employment, Skinner received annual employee evaluations. Pet. Ex. 1. Her attendance problems over time were documented and verified in her annual employee evaluations. Pet. Ex. 1. More specifically, Skinner's last four annual employee evaluations evaluated her on six main categories of performance, one of which was Attendance. This category evaluated the following performance attribute: "Complies with policies and procedures regarding usage of time and leave; [m]aintains scheduled work and break times; [r]eports absences for emergencies and illnesses, and requests leave, in a timely manner." Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. In each of her last three annual employee evaluations, Skinner was rated as "Needs Improvement" for Attendance. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 2-4. On each of the last four annual employee evaluations, Skinner also received written comments from her supervisor about her attendance. These comments were consistent and pointed out that Skinner needed to improve attendance and work to comply with attendance policies. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. Each annual performance evaluation was discussed with Skinner and she signed each. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. School Board Attendance Policies and Requirements The Board's policies established and outlined general guidelines and expectations for work attendance. Employees were generally expected to attend work as scheduled unless they had arranged for advance leave. See generally, Pet. Ex. 10. Employees who were absent from duty for any reason were required to notify their supervisor as early as possible. Notification of an absence had to be given in advance unless conditions beyond the control of the employee made advance notice impossible. Pet. Ex. 9. The Classified Personnel Contract governing Skinner and other employees similarly provided that employees were required to arrange for advance leave for vacation and to notify their supervisor prior to the start of the work day if they were taking sick leave. Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 33 and 34. The School Bookkeeper Job Description, which applied to Skinner, required her to follow attendance, punctuality, and other qualities of an appropriate work ethic. Pet. Ex. 13, line 11. Skinner's significant and frequent attendance problems caused her to fall short of these policy, contract, and job description requirements. History of Attendance Problems The witnesses confirmed that Skinner violated the attendance policies on a frequent basis for several years. Regrettably, her attendance problems became most acute in her last year. This eventually lead to a recommendation for her termination in her last year of employment. The parties acknowledged in their Joint Pre-hearing Statement- Amended, that Skinner received all required stages of progressive discipline for her attendance problems. This included a verbal warning, a written reprimand, and a suspension, finally resulting in a recommendation by the Superintendent that her employment be terminated. Skinner's supervisors also discussed and counseled her on her attendance problems several times throughout the years, both informally and formally. In the disciplinary letters, Skinner was informed that, in the event of recurrence, she would be subjected to further discipline including a recommendation for termination. Pet. Exs. 2-3. More specifically, in the disciplinary letter from the Superintendent dated March 3, 2020, Skinner was informed that: "It is expected that there be no further occurrence of such behavior. If it continues, your position with the Okeechobee County School Board will be terminated." Pet. Ex. 5, p. 1. In this disciplinary letter, Skinner received numerous attachments including copies of the Board Policy 6.213, entitled "Notification of Absence and the Employee Assistance Plan." Skinner signed and acknowledged receiving the disciplinary letters for her attendance problems, and agreed that they put her on notice that her attendance shortcomings were a problem. Skinner also received negative employee evaluations on her attendance for the past three years, which were discussed and signed by her. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 2-4. It was clear to the undersigned that Skinner received full, fair, and adequate notice of her attendance problem for several years. Unfortunately, she was unable to correct it after multiple warnings, corrective action, and progressive discipline. Termination Authority Superintendent Ken Kenworthy is responsible for determining and recommending whether an employee should be terminated for violation of Board policies or rules. Pet. Ex. 11. The Superintendent is only entitled to discipline and terminate the employment of an administrative employee on a continuing contract for "just cause." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 15. The Superintendent testified that he takes many factors into consideration when determining whether just cause exists for termination. He looks at the reasonableness of the Board's rules, whether the employee was informed of the rules, and whether the disciplinary action taken is proportionate to the infraction. The undersigned finds that this process is fair, and provides adequate due process to affected employees of the District. The Superintendent ensures that progressive discipline has been followed when taking an action against an employee's employment. See generally, Pet. Ex. 8. In this case, all the stages of progressive discipline from informal conversations and memoranda of conference through the formal disciplinary stages of verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and recommendation for termination were followed. The Board's rules on employee attendance are reasonable and necessary to ensure the proper functioning and operation of the school district. Several witnesses and the Superintendent testified that proper and regular attendance was a "critical" and "essential function" of an employee's job performance. Skinner's supervisors, Kubit and Dr. Stanley, both testified that notification of absences when an employee cannot attend work is "critical." Several Board witnesses provided testimony showing the hardship that Skinner's absences created for Central Elementary School. For instance, Dr. Stanley expressed his view that it was a hardship for Central Elementary School when Skinner was absent, especially at the last minute, because others had to cover her job. This left the school short staffed in other areas. Likewise, according to Kubit, it was especially difficult when Skinner was absent because other people had to perform her duties, but according to rules and regulations most people were not authorized to handle money. According to Assistant Principal Norman, when Skinner was absent from work, money would have to be kept at the school even though it is supposed to be promptly deposited. This was true because only Skinner could verify the money for a deposit. This violated bookkeeping rules about depositing money, and was unsafe when large sums of money were left undeposited at a school. Skinner was advised on numerous occasions and by different people that her repeated and unauthorized absences without notification were creating difficulty for the functioning of Central Elementary School. Not only did Skinner leave the school short staffed, but she had a tendency to do so when her presence was most needed. The witnesses concurred that Skinner's repeated absences tended to follow a pattern. For example, if Central Elementary School was at a busy time of year or an event occurred that required additional bookkeeping, like a fundraising event, Skinner often would not come to work and did not arrange for leave or call in. This left the school in a difficult predicament. Aside from her leaving the school short staffed, Skinner's work absences also had a negative effect on her job performance. Several Board witnesses testified, for example, that Skinner's work performance started to decline. This was caused by Skinner's work getting backed up and not completed on time because of her absences. This became particularly evident after her suspension when other employees came in to review her unfinished work and sort out the bookkeeping at Central Elementary School. During this review, several problems were noticed. Skinner acknowledged knowing that her problem with unauthorized absences was having a negative effect on Central Elementary School. During the hearing, Skinner admitted that her struggle with alcohol misuse caused or contributed to her attendance problems. According to her supervisor, Dr. Stanley, Skinner never provided alcoholism as an excuse for her absences. Instead, Skinner would make the excuse that she slept in or just did not get up to come to work. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner did not offer or mention problems with alcohol as an excuse for her unauthorized absences. Instead, she regularly apologized and promised to improve her attendance in the future. Not only did Skinner not reveal to her supervisors that alcoholism was a reason for her absence problem, Skinner never sought assistance or accommodation for her struggle with alcohol prior to the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. The Board provides employees struggling with medical or other problems assistance through its Employee Assistance Program. It also provides leave for medical problems though the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Pet. Ex. 18, p. 32. Skinner was provided a copy of the Employee Assistance Plan when she was suspended for three days in March 2020, prior to the Superintendent's recommendation for termination of her employment two months later. Pet. Ex. 5, p. 2. However, despite her awareness of the assistance offered in March 2020, Skinner never used the Employee Assistance Plan or FMLA leave to try and save her job or correct her underlying problem prior to being terminated. While the evidence revealed that an employee suffering from an alcohol problem had an opportunity to seek treatment while still employed, this treatment was permitted when their employment was active and in good stead--not after the employee was suspended and dismissal of employment was in progress. Further, Skinner testified that she had been an alcoholic her "whole life" and it had progressively gotten worse in the last four years. Regrettably, there was no medical documentation or other evidence provided in advance for the Board to verify her problem with alcohol. But, at the end of the day, and to be clear, this was Skinner's illness and it was her responsibility to seek help and take advantage of programs the Board offered.2 2 The undersigned reasonably infers from the evidence and record that Skinner knew or should have known about the Employee Assistance Plan many months, if not years, before her termination. Sadly, however, she did not take advantage of the program. Turning directly to the matter at hand, the allegations of the Superintendent's termination letter were limited to her attendance problems. While problems with alcohol may have existed or accounted for her absences, the crux of this case concerns Skinner's attendance problem. Other violations or performance deficiencies related to Skinner's problems with alcohol or related performance issues were not alleged as a basis to terminate her. Those related problems provide some background and context to the attendance issue at hand, but they are not being considered by the undersigned as directly affecting the outcome of this case. Added to that, despite later discovering Skinner's problems with alcohol and how this affected her attendance, the Superintendent did not amend his recommendation for termination of employment to include abuse of alcohol or other related work performance issues. Superintendent Kenworthy felt that Skinner's chronic and disruptive workplace absences alone merited termination of employment. In his view, no other violations needed to be cited since Skinner was not meeting his attendance expectations. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the Board had sufficient just cause to terminate Skinner for repeated and chronic attendance problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Okeechobee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating Jacqueline Skinner's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 303 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Johnson, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Thomas W. Conely, Esquire Conely & Conely, P.A. Post Office Box 1367 Okeechobee, Florida 34973 (eServed) Molly Lauren Shaddock, Esquire Sniffen and Spellman 605 North Olive Avenue, 2nd Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Ken Kenworthy, Superintendent Okeechobee School Board 700 Southwest 2nd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, an African-American male, as a paraprofessional, non-instructional employee at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent School Board is the body politic responsible for the administration of public schools within the Suwannee County School District. Petitioner was a member of the non-instructional chapter of the United Teachers of Suwannee County, Florida, and was subject to the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement between that organization and Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner’s employment was subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Continuing Contract of Employment Non-Instructional Education Support Employees of the Public Schools executed between Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner worked at the Suwannee Primary School in Live Oak, Florida. Petitioner’s work schedule required him to work Monday through Friday of each work week. Petitioner’s duty day started at 7:30 a.m. and ended at 2:40 p.m. Marilyn K. Jones, the principal of the Primary School, was Petitioner’s immediate supervisor. Although their surnames are the same, Principal Jones and Petitioner are not related. Petitioner approached Jones on February 14, 2005, and spoke with her regarding his recent employment with a state prison. Petitioner informed Jones that he had been hired as a corrections officer and that he was required to attend orientation and training sessions. Petitioner informed Jones that the initial orientation and training sessions were held during times he was required to work at the Primary School. Petitioner asked for a couple days off from his work at the Primary School to attend these initial sessions. Petitioner was hopeful that once the training and orientation sessions were completed, his work hours with the state prison would be from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and would not interfere with his employment with Respondent. Jones informed the Petitioner that he could use personal leave time that he had accumulated to attend the orientation and training sessions. Jones requested that Petitioner keep her posted regarding the days he would be absent and directed him to complete and submit the forms required to take leave prior to the actual absences so that arrangements could be made for substitute personnel to assume Petitioner's duties. Petitioner did not, however, submit the proper leave forms and the training period at the prison was longer than the originally expected. Additionally, after discussions with the payroll Department, Jones learned that the Petitioner did not have enough accumulated leave time to allow for his previous absences. Jones and the Petitioner had a telephone conversation on March 5, 2005. Jones informed Petitioner that he had been absent more times than their initial understanding, that he had failed to submit the leave forms in advance of the days he would be absent, and that he did not have leave time available. Petitioner apologized for the additional time that he had been absent and again noted that he thought that after the first few days of training, his work at hours at the prison would be from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Jones told Petitioner that his continued absences would be unauthorized and that she did not want him to be fired for taking unauthorized leave. Jones informed the Petitioner that if he wished to resign, he could submit his resignation to her. On March 7, 2005, Petitioner met with Jones and her assistant principal Betty Ann Sumner, along with Sheryl Daniels, the president of the Teacher’s Union, to discuss Petitioner’s absences. Petitioner expressed his desire to work three days a week at the Suwannee Primary School and the other two days at his job with the prison. Jones reiterated her previous statements to Petitioner that she was concerned for him and did not want the School Board to terminate his employment based on his absenteeism. Jones informed Petitioner that he had taken days off from work without providing any advance notice and advised that in the event of future absences, Petitioner must submit the appropriate forms in advance. When Petitioner raised the subject of a leave of absence until the fall semester so that he could schedule his employment with the prison and Respondent to avoid time conflicts, he was referred to Respondent's district office. Subsequently, Petitioner requested a 10 week leave of absence with the Superintendent of the Suwannee County School District, J. Walter Boatright, to continue to pursue training as a corrections officer. Under School Board policy, an absence in excess of five days has to be approved by the School Board. Boatright declined to bring Petitioner’s request for leave to the Suwannee County School Board based on his view that the Board’s policies did not allow an employee an extended leave of absence to receive training for an unrelated second job, that the end of the school year was approaching, and that the School District needed the presence of all of its employees. As established by Boatright's testimony, Respondent often has difficulty finding substitute personnel when its employees are absent for wholly legitimate reasons. Boatright informed Petitioner that he would not recommend that the School Board approve Petitioner’s request and would not bring Petitioner’s request to the School Board for its consideration. Additionally, Boatright recommended that the School Board deny Petitioner’s request for leave for the days that he had already been absent. Petitioner never personally appeared before the School Board to submit his request for personal leave. After Boatright's decision was communicated to him, Petitioner was again absent without leave on several occasions. Petitioner met with Boatright on March 24, 2005. At that meeting, Boatright warned Petitioner that he faced disciplinary action, including termination from employment if he continued to be absent from his non-instructional position without leave. In response to Boatright’s warnings, Petitioner said, “Anybody can do what I do” and suggested that Boatright simply obtain a substitute teacher to fill his position. Following Petitioner's remarks, Boatright informed Petitioner that his role with the Suwannee County School District as a paraprofessional, non-instructional employee was important. Sheryl Daniels, the president of the United Teachers of Suwannee County was also present at the meeting on March 24, 2005, with Boatright and Petitioner. Daniels asked Boatright to reconsider Petitioner’s request for leave because Petitioner had been a good employee in the past and this should merit some additional consideration. Boatright, however, denied Petitioner’s request for leave. Later, Petitioner received a letter dated April 20, 2005, from Boatright, confirming and reiterating the warning delivered to Petitioner during the March 24, 2005. In this letter, Boatright, advised Petitioner “that any further absence without leave on your part after the receipt of this letter will result in my recommendation to the Suwannee County School Board for your termination.” Subsequent to Petitioner’s receipt of the April 20, 2005, letter from Superintendent Boatright, Petitioner was again absent without leave in late April and in May of 2005. On April 28, 2005, Petitioner received his annual employment evaluation. The evaluation was performed by Jones, his principal. An employee’s overall evaluation rating is determined by adding the employees’ scores in seven different categories. Although Petitioner received an overall rating of “Effective,” Petitioner’s rating with respect to his professional responsibilities was “Needs Improvement.” Jones’ evaluation noted that although Petitioner did a good job in the computer lab, his frequent absences were a concern and that student behavior had deteriorated in Petitioner’s classes when he was absent. On April 28, 2005, Boatright filed a petition with the School Board to terminate Petitioner’s employment. A hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2005. The School Board rescheduled the May 15, 2005, hearing, however, when Petitioner requested additional time to prepare for the hearing. Thereafter, Petitioner was served with an Amended Petition for Termination of Employment filed by Boatright. The Superintendent’s Petition for Termination of Employment charged Petitioner with violating Suwannee County School Board Policy Section 6.22, which states, “[a]ny employee of the District who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of the absence and the employee contract shall be subject to cancellation by the School Board.” By letter dated May 31, 2005, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Respondent. In that letter, Petitioner wrote that he was submitting his resignation due to the denial of his request for an unpaid leave of absence and the need to avoid further damage to his reputation. Petitioner also stated in the letter that he thought he had been the subject of discrimination and was left with no alternative but to resign his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mike Jones Post Office Box 372 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Andrew J. Decker, IV, Esquire Andrew J. Decker, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1288 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment by the Pinellas County School Board as a painter in the School Board’s Maintenance Department for any or all of the following: excessive absenteeism, failure to report absences according to established procedures, failure to provide required medical documentation for absences, tardiness, insubordination, driving under the influence of alcohol and criminal conviction of driving while intoxicated?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, is the authority that operates, controls and supervises all free public schools in the Pinellas County School District. Dwayne Goodrow has been employed as a painter in the Maintenance Department for the Pinellas County School Board since April 18, 1989. His work has always been satisfactory and sometimes better than satisfactory. Over the years of his employment, however, he has had chronic and serious attendance problems. Absenteeism, Attendance and Other Performance Factors On August 2, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." The memorandum stated that since the beginning of the school year, Mr. Goodrow had been absent an excessive number of times, including 17 hours of leave without pay. It informed Mr. Goodrow that, "[t]his absenteeism is unacceptable and you must make an immediate and permanent correction of this behavior." (Petitioner's Ex. No. 1) It further advised him that the memorandum would be placed in his file as a record that he had been counseled about the matter and that he fully understood that any reoccurrence of excessive absenteeism would result in a letter of reprimand. The memorandum warns: In the event you receive a letter of reprimand and the excessive absenteeism continues, you will become subject to more severe disciplinary action, which could include suspension or dismissal. Id. The memorandum is signed first by Mr. Goodrow and then by school board personnel: Mr. Goodrow's foreman and general foreman as well as the Superintendent of the School District. On October 5, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for excessive absenteeism. The letter informs Mr. Goodrow of his General Foreman's belief that he has not realized the seriousness of his problem with absenteeism because in the interim since the August 2 memorandum he had been absent 29 and ½ additional hours. The letter warns, "if your absenteeism continues, it will be cause to recommend you for suspension or dismissal." Petitioner's Ex. No.2. It concludes, "Your signature below will acknowledge that you have received and understand this letter of reprimand." Id. Just as the August 2, 1990 memorandum, the letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow and school board personnel. On a Supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal signed by Mr. Goodrow January 18, 1991, he received a rating of unsatisfactory in the area of attendance and "needs improvement" in the area of punctuality. The remarks section of the appraisal states with regard to attendance, "[h]as received letters warning him of this, must be corrected." Petitioner's Ex. No. 17. The appraisal also states, "Dwayne has good painting abilities and knowledge, can be trusted to complete any job given him." Id. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." With the exception of stating that he had taken 15 hours of leave without pay, the memorandum is identical to the August 2, 1990 memorandum. On a supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal dated February 14, 1992, Mr. Goodrow was again rated unsatisfactory under the performance factor of attendance. The remarks section reflects that he received counseling on December 19, 1991, for frequent tardiness but also that "[j]ob knowledge is adequate," "[c]ompletes assigned work on time," "[h]as the ability to be a self-starter," and "[c]an be a good team worker." Petitioner's Ex. No. 16. On September 15, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received an Attendance Deficiency Notification Letter. The letter states "[y]ou are required to bring in doctor's documentation of your illness on all further sick leave absence requests." Petitioner's Ex. No. 4. Although there is a place on the letter for Mr. Goodrow's signature and a notation that signature by the employee does not imply agreement with statements in the letter, the letter reflects that Mr. Goodrow refused to sign it. On October 3, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received a Record of Counseling. It noted deficiencies in his performance in that, INSUBORDINATION - You were told to furnish doctors excuses for any sick leave taken as per letter dated 9/15/94. On 9/26/94 you used 2 hours sick leave and failed to provide Doctor's excuse upon request of your Foreman. Petitioner's Ex. No. 5. To bring his performance to the satisfactory level, Mr. Goodrow was advised he would have to supply a doctor's documentation of illness whenever he took sick leave in the future. On February 17, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was rated as "Needing Improvement," in the area of attendance on his performance appraisal by his supervisor. The remarks section of the appraisal reflects that he was counseled for not following leave policy but also that "Dwayne has shown a more positive attitude recently, he has the potential to progress." Petitioner's Ex. No. 15. Furthermore, Mr. Goodrow was rated "better than satisfactory, in the area of "job knowledge." Consistent with this rating, in the remarks section, the following appears, "Dwayne exhibits his job knowledge by identifying problems and solving them . . . ." Id. The potential for progress noted in February did not last long. On March 24, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for insubordination for failing to provide a doctor's excuse for sick leave absences contrary to previous instructions. The letter warned that failure to provide doctor's excuses in the future to justify sick leave will result in "further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." Petitioner's Ex. No. 6. Over the next 6 months, Mr. Goodrow began again to show progress. By early September, 1995, his attendance had "improved considerably," Petitioner's Ex. No. 7, and the requirement for a doctor's excuse for every sick leave absence was lifted. The procedure for reporting absences in the School Board's Maintenance Department is for employees to call in at least one-half hour prior to their normal starting time. There is an answering machine upon which a message can be recorded when there is no person available to take the call. Shortly after the lifting of the requirement for a doctor's excuse to justify sick leave, Mr. Goodrow, on Wednesday, September 13, 1995, was absent from work. He did not call in consistent with the procedure for reporting absences. He was absent again two days later. In addition to the failure to call in on September 13, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was absent without calling in on three other days in the fall of 1995: October 18 and 26, and November 9. Each time he failed to call in, Mr. Goodrow was verbally warned by Trades Foreman Al Myers of the requirement for calling in and was given a review of proper procedure. On December 14, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow proper procedure with regard to the four absences in the fall of 1995. The letter was the result of an agreement with Mr. Goodrow that the letter was the appropriate response by the maintenance department for the absences and failure to follow procedure. A stipulation was added, however, to the agreement: "[A]nother attendance incident within one year will result in recommendation for 'Time off without pay' or possible 'Dismissal'.". Petitioner's Ex. No. 7. The letter concludes, "Also, as of this date you are again required to provide medical proof of your [inability to attend work] . . . and you are required to notify your supervisor prior to the start of work shift you are going to be absent." Id. The letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow. On February 26, 1996, Mr. Goodrow and the School Board entered a Stipulation Agreement. The agreement reviewed Mr. Goodrow's performance appraisals for unsatisfactory attendance, and insubordination for taking sick leave without doctor's excuses. Furthermore, it stated that Mr. Goodrow: On December 15, 1995, . . . left work early without proper notification or required medical documentation. On January 3, 1996, Mr. Goodrow failed to report his absence according to established procedures, and on January 17, 1996, he failed to report his absence according to established procedures and requested 3.5 hours of sick leave without providing required medical documentation. Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. As an expression of regret and to affirm his commitment to notify his supervisor in the future regarding absences, Mr. Goodrow agreed to a three day suspension without pay effective March 19, 20 and 21, 1996. The stipulation also states that Mr. Goodrow, once again, understands that further problems could result in more serious disciplinary action, including dismissal. On April 16, 1996, Mr. Goodrow received a performance review finding him to have continued to demonstrate unsatisfactory attendance and judgment in that on March 6, 1996, he was late 3 hours with no explanation, on March 28, 1996, he was late one-half hour with no explanation, on April 3, 1996 he took eight hours sick leave without doctor's justification, on April 9, 1996, he was arrested and charged with DUI, and on April 11, 1996, he took eight hours sick leave without a doctor's justification. Driving While Intoxicated The job description for a painter employed with the Pinellas County School Board includes the requirement that the employee possess a valid State of Florida Class B commercial driver's license ("CDL"), to include "air brake" qualifications, and any other license as may be required by law. On March 30, 1996, while driving a motor vehicle off- duty, Mr. Goodrow was stopped by a law enforcement officer for failing to maintain his vehicle in a single lane of traffic. Deputy Howard Skaggs, a member of the Sheriff Department's DUI unit, was summoned to the scene to conduct filed sobriety tests to determine whether Mr. Goodrow was driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Skaggs smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the breath of Mr. Goodrow, who, in turn, admitted that he had consumed at least six beers at two different taverns. While at the roadside, three field sobriety tests were performed by Deputy Skaggs, all of which Mr. Goodrow failed. Deputy Skaggs concluded that Mr. Goodrow was without doubt impaired. At the jail, Mr. Goodrow was asked to submit to a breathalyzer. He refused with the statement that he had had too much to drink and the test would only incriminate him. Mr. Goodrow was arrested. On September 17, 1996, Mr. Goodrow entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, required to enroll in DUI school, fined $1000.00, and his driver's license was revoked for one year. Without a driver's license and a CDL, Mr. Goodrow no longer meets the job description of a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. Notification of Dismissal On June 19, 1996, Mr. Goodrow was notified that Superintendent Hinesley would recommend to the School Board that he be dismissed due to excessive absenteeism and insubordination. The DUI conviction, not having yet occurred, was not, of course, a factor in the superintendent's decision. Comparison with Other Employees Brett Paul, a painter in the Maintenance Department like Mr. Goodrow, also had attendance problems very similar to Mr. Goodrow's. He was suspended for three days without pay on the very same dates as Mr. Goodrow. Since the March suspension, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, Mr. Paul's attendance has improved with the exception on an isolated instance in which his absence was due to a "major life event," the purchase of a house. He has not been convicted of DUI. Tom Appold was arrested for DUI during a time that he was employed as a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. After his conviction for DUI, he requested that he be allowed to transfer to another department, presumably because he could no longer meet the job description requirement that he hold a CDL. The request was honored and he is now employed by the School Board in another section of the Maintenance Department for which a CDL is not required. Mr. Appold, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, has never been reprimanded or suspended for attendance problems. His attendance has always been found by the School Board's Maintenance Department to be within acceptable limits. Alcoholism and a Change of Heart Mr. Goodrow is an alcoholic. His excessive absenteeism, refusal to follow proper procedures with regard to work absences, insubordination, driving while intoxicated, arrest and conviction for DUI, and virtually every other work problem he had experienced over his seven years of employment with the School Board's maintenance department stems from alcoholism. For example, many of the days he missed at work were days following dart tournaments the night before at local establishments that served alcohol. Until the aftermath of his DUI conviction, Mr. Goodrow was ashamed and embarrassed to admit he suffers alcoholism. Today, with the assistance of professional counseling required as condition of probation for the crime of which he has been convicted, Mr. Goodrow is able to admit and freely did so at hearing that he is an alcoholic. The ability to make this admission is a major step forward for Mr. Goodrow. It is unfortunate that Mr. Goodrow's ability to face up to his problem has come so late. Had he admitted the condition when he was encountering problems with attendance at work, there were a number of options available to him and the School Board short of poor performance appraisals, letters of reprimand and suspension. As Dr. Martha O'Howell , Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards testified, We would have talked to him about the extent of that drinking problem. We would have referred him to . . . Cigna, the health provider. At that time, there was no formalized EAP [Employee Assistance Program] in place that the employee could go directly to, but there was . . . substance abuse counselling (sic) through Cigna that was available. We would have referred him or put him in contact with our risk management department. We would have encouraged him to take a leave of absence while he was seeking treatment, (Tr. 78). depending on the nature of the treatment, the severity, the length and so forth. We would have worked with him to provide a medical leave of absence if that had become necessary. If Mr. Goodrow's suspension were lifted and his employment was reinstated, the School Board's Employee Assistance Program would be available now to help him cope with his alcoholism. School Board personnel are not willing to make such a recommendation, however, in light of all that has occurred in Mr. Goodrow's case. A supervisor in the Maintenance Department expressed concern over the precedent that would be set if Mr. Goodrow were allowed to return to work, particularly in the minds of employees who might think that conduct like Mr. Goodrow's resulted in no meaningful consequences on the part of the School Board. Contrary to the concern of the Maintenance Department, the action taken to date, a suspension without pay that has been in effect now for more than eight months, has resulted in very definite consequences to Mr. Goodrow. In the main, he has been unemployed. He has made reasonable efforts to gain employment. But the loss of his driver's license has held him back. At the time of hearing, what little money he had been able to earn from the time of his suspension was certainly far below what he would have earned had he not been suspended from the employment he had held for more than seven years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the suspension of Dwayne Goodrow be sustained by the Pinellas County School Board but that he be reinstated without back pay if adequate conditions for his return to work can be agreed-to by the parties. If conditions of reinstatement cannot be agreed-to, Mr. Goodrow should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 11th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Elihu H. Berman, Esquire Berman & Hobgood, P.A. 1525 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 34624
