The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from her employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Mack has been employed by the School Board for six years. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mack was a school lunch assistant assigned to Seminole High School. Her immediate supervisor was John Caldwell (Caldwell). Mack received satisfactory evaluations of her work for Petitioner until April 2002, when she received an evaluation from Caldwell criticizing her in several areas. On April 12, 2002, a Friday, Mack was upset about her evaluation, showed her evaluation to fellow workers and loudly complained about her evaluation. She was becoming disruptive to the cafeteria operations. Caldwell called Mack into his office to discuss her behavior. She became loud, and Caldwell had to call the Assistant Principal. Mack was sent home. Caldwell did not tell her not to come back, and, at that time, did not tell her that he was going to recommend that she be terminated. On Monday, April 15, 2002, Mack called her workplace and said that she was sick and was going to the emergency room. On April 16, 2002, Mack called in and spoke to Janelle Harris (Harris), who was Caldwell's assistant. Mack told Harris that she had the flu and would not be coming to work. The policy for a food service worker at Seminole High School who was going to be absent from work because of sickness was that the worker was to call either Caldwell or Harris and notify them of the absence. The telephone in Caldwell's office has voice mail capabilities; thus, if Caldwell or Harris were not in the office, the sick employee was to leave a message on the voice mail. Caldwell and Harris were the only two persons who had access to the code to retrieve messages from the voice mail. On April 17, 2002, Mack was absent from work, but did not call in and give an explanation for her absence. Mack continued to be absent from work without calling in. On April 26, 2002, Mack came to the school office and picked up her paycheck. She did not go to the cafeteria and tell Caldwell or Harris why she had not been at work. Learning that Mack had gone to the school to pick up her check, Caldwell called Mack at her home. Mack told Caldwell that she had called in and left a voice mail. No messages were left on the voice mail by Mack between April 17 and April 26. Caldwell explained to Mack that she was required to call in unless she was in the hospital or could not talk. Daniel Andrews (Andrews), the Director of Food Services, prepared a letter to be sent to Mack under Caldwell's signature. The letter, dated May 2, 2002, advised Mack that she had continued to be absent without calling in to notify Caldwell of her absence and to provide a reason for the absence. The letter further advised her that three days of absence without leave required a penalty of termination. Mack was requested to contact Caldwell by noon on May 7, 2002, or the case would be referred to Andrews. Mack did not receive the letter until May 8, 2002; however, she never contacted Caldwell concerning the letter. By letter dated May 10, 2002, Andrews advised Mack that because of her continued absences without leave and her failure to provide justification for her absences that he would be requesting that her termination be recommended to the School Board. Mack received this letter on May 18, 2002. By letter dated May 20, 2002, Paul Hagerty, Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, advised Mack that he would be appearing before the School Board on May 28, 2002, and recommending that she be suspended without pay. He further advised her that at the June 11, 2002, School Board meeting he would file a recommendation that her employment be terminated effective June 12, 2002. Mack contacted Andrews by telephone and left a voice mail. On May 21, 2002, Andrews returned her call, and Mack told him that she had gotten the voice mail when she tried to call Caldwell but did not leave any messages. Andrews would have accepted a reasonable explanation from Mack for her absences when she talked to him on May 21, but she did not provide any plausible reason for not notifying Caldwell of her absences nor did she ever provide any documentation from a doctor that she had been ill during her absences. Mack told Andrews that she did not care if her employment was terminated. By letter dated May 25, 2002, Mack requested a hearing on the decision to terminate her employment. Mack did not request a hearing concerning the recommendation for her suspension. On May 28, 2002, the School Board suspended Mack, effective May 29, 2002. Mack had a job at a local barbeque restaurant during the evening hours. While she was absent from her job at Seminole High School, she continued to work at the barbeque restaurant. The Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction, Inc., and the School Board have entered into a collective bargaining agreement, effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2002, covering the wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreement applies to Mack's employment with the School Board. Article VII, Sections 5, 11, and 15 of the collective bargaining agreement provide: Section 5. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: * * * 10. Improper use of sick leave. Section 11. Absence Without Leave Employees will be considered absent without leave if they fail to notify their principal, appropriate director or supervisor that they will be absent from duty and the reason for such absence. Absence without leave is a breach of contract and may be grounds for immediate dismissal. Section 15 Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense--Written reprimand and one day suspension. 2nd Offense--Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense--Recommend for termination. The School Board interprets the collective bargaining agreement to mean that each day an employee is absent without leave is a separate offense. At no time did the School Board issue Mack a written reprimand, one-day suspension, or a five- day suspension prior to her termination, as set forth in Section 15 of the collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dorothy Mack was absent without leave, suspending her for one day, and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606 Sandra J. Pomerantz, Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's state teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter 231, , Florida Statutes, asset forth in Petition, dated May 21, 1979. This is an administrative proceeding whereby the Petitioner seeks to take adverse action concerning the teaching certificate of the Respondent based on two counts of misconduct arising from the teacher/pupil relationship. The first count alleges that the Respondent had sexual intercourse with a seventh grade student on one or more occasions during the 1972 school year. The other alleges that during the 1978 school year, the Respondent kissed a female student on the lips on one or more occasion. The Petitioner herein was filed pursuant to directions of the State Commissioner of Education who, on May 18, 1979, found probable cause to justify disciplinary action under the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Respondent requested an administrative hearing by his answer to the Petition, dated June 20, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 157255, Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1989, covering the areas of English elementary education, and junior college. He received a Maser's Degree in education from South Carolina State College in 1969, and obtained Florida teaching certification in August, 1969. At the time of the incidents alleged in the Petitioner, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the public schools of Orange County. (Testimony of Respondent, case pleadings) During the 1971-72 school year, Respondent was a sixth grade teacher at the Grand Avenue Elementary School, Orlando, Florida. At some undisclosed time subsequent to the end of the school year, an Information was filed against Respondent by the State Attorney, Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as a result of allegations that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of his twelve- year-old female students in 1972. The case was thereafter nolle prossed by the State Attorney for insufficient evidence. (Testimony of Nagel, Bailey) The alleged victim, Harriett Moten, testified at the hearing that on a number of occasions during the period January or February through May, 1972, while a twelve-year-old student in Respondent's sixth grade class, Respondent had sexual intercourse with her in a storage area behind the stage of the school auditorium. She testified that such incidents occurred approximately twice a week at about 11:00 A.M. during a class period. At those times, Respondent allegedly sent her out of class on an errand, such as obtaining film, and then joined her in the backstage area. She stated that these encounters would consume approximately 20 or 25 minutes by the time she returned to class, and the Respondent came back to class a short time later. Although music classes were conducted in the auditorium practically every day of the school week during the times in question, Moten testified that she never saw the auditorium in use or heard music while she was behind the stage. She stated that she submitted to Respondent's advances because she was afraid of him. She further testified that on one occasion Respondent had brought another female student to the rear of the stage who observed his activities with her. The deposition testimony of another former student, Thomas Grier, was admitted in evidence wherein he testified that he had once observed Respondent lying on top of the student who supposedly had once witnessed Respondent and Moten behind the stage. This incident also allegedly took place behind the auditorium after a music class. He further testified that he had observed Respondent enter the classroom on a number of occasions with one or the other of the tow female students. The witness was deposed at Zephyrhills Corrections Institute, Zephyrhills, Florida, where he was incarcerated for possession of a firearm. It was his third conviction of a felony. Harriet Moten testified that she gave birth to a child in January 1973. Although her blood type and that of Respondent is 0, she was informed by an Assistant State Attorney that her child's blood type was A. She had been a failing student during her sixth grade year and had been paddled a number of times by Respondent for disciplinary reasons. She informed her mother of Respondent's actions in the summer of 1972 when she experienced irregular menstrual periods and was found to be pregnant after her mother took her to a physician. She had not informed her mother earlier concerning the matter because they did not get along with each other. She claimed that she had not had sexual relations with anyone other than Respondent. Respondent denied the allegations at the hearing and said that, although the student had been one of his "problem children" whom he had to discipline on occasion, she had appeared to like him and was the only student who had brought him a Christmas present in 1971. From the foregoing, it is considered that the improbable and uncorroborated testimony of Harriet Moten, when viewed against Respondent's unequivocal denial of the allegations, is insufficient upon which to predicate a finding that Respondent had sexual intercourse with the student, as alleged in the complaint. The deposition testimony of Grier which, in part, supports the allegations, is not deemed credible. (Testimony of Moten, Grier (deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 5, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5). During the 1978-79 school year, Respondent taught sixth grade at the Cypress Park Elementary School, Orlando, Florida. On November 20, 1978, one of his students, Patricia Foster, accompanied by another member of her class, Lola Ortega, reported to the school principal that in the preceding October, Respondent had kissed her in the classroom during a-recess period when no one else was present. Lola told the principal that she had opened the classroom door at the time and observed the incident. The principal reported the matter to a school board Area Administrator who interviewed the two girls on the following day. Patricia told this official that Respondent had kissed her twice on the lips during the recess period and that, after the first kiss, he had said he "didn't mean it." Patricia said that on the second occasion, she looked up and saw Lola open the door and then close it. She further stated that she had not told her parents of the incident because her stepfather would have become angry, and that she had not told the principal earlier because she didn't want to get Respondent in trouble. Lola told the Area Administrator that she had opened the door to the classroom and observed Respondent stoop over and kiss Patty on the lips, at which time she closed the door and returned to the playground. At the hearing, Patricia testified that Lola had opened the door when Respondent kissed her the first time. Lola testified that at the time she opened the classroom door, Respondent had his back toward her and that she only saw him bend over the desk. She conceded that she had not seen Respondent actually kiss Patricia and denied that she had told anyone that she had. However, upon further inquiry, she admitted telling the principal that she had seen Respondent kiss the student and could not explain why she had done so. Patricia later told one of her classmates at a "slumber party" about the incident. That girl, Michelle Cridelle, testified that she thought Patricia had told her Respondent had kissed her twice on different days. Respondent had disciplinary problems with Lola during the previous school year and at the beginning of the 1978-79 school year. Also, on a prior occasion, she and another female student had fabricated a letter purportedly written by a male student to them containing coarse language which she admitted was designed to get the boy in trouble when it was delivered to her father. In another instance, Patricia and Lola had been untruthful in telling Patricia's mother where they had been on one occasion. Lola had been a frequent disciplinary problem for the school principal who considered her to be a leader and catalyst in creating problems at school. Respondent testified that, on the day of the alleged kissing incident, another student was in the classroom with Patricia during the recess period, and that he had simply gone to her desk and colored some leaves on a box. He denied kissing her on this or any other occasion. The school principal is of the opinion that Respondent is a very truthful individual. It is considered that the improbable, contradictory, and uncorroborated testimony of Patricia concerning the alleged kissing incident, coupled with Respondent's denial of the same, is insufficient upon which to base a finding that Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Petition. (Testimony of Foster, Richardson, Ortega, Cridelle, Cossairt, Taylor, Brady, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent was relieved of his duties as a classroom teacher by the Superintendent of Orange County Public Schools on November 28, 1978, and reassigned to an Assistant Superintendent's office to perform administrative duties pending investigation of the 1978 allegations by Petitioner. He had been supervised by the principal of the Cypress Park Elementary School for a period of six years. The principal testified that the other teachers respected him, but that he should not be working with children due to his abrasive personality with students. During the three year period 1976-78, Respondent's performance evaluations were uniformly "Satisfactory," except in those areas reflecting his relations with students and parents, and in his support of "state laws and county policies." It was noted in the 1977 and 1978 evaluations that improvement was needed in those areas. Narrative comments of the evaluations further indicated his lack of rapport with students and parents, lack of support of corporal punishment practices, and his ridicule of students. One fellow teacher at Cypress Park Elementary School submitted a letter to Petitioner in January, 1978, stating that Respondent had always conducted himself properly with students and parents on the occasions when she had observed him at the school and during school functions. (Testimony of Cossairt, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 3, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 4).
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Isadore Smith be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of February, 1980. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street - Room 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Ms. Lindstrand violated section 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2012), or whether there is just cause to terminate Ms. Lindstrand.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this matter, the School Board employed Ms. Lindstrand as a math teacher at Cypress Bay High School. Ms. Lindstrand had started her employment with the School Board in 1996. In June 2011, Ms. Lindstrand was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). She hired an attorney and contested the charge. Her trial was scheduled for February 27 and 28, 2013. Ms. Lindstrand requested and had been approved for leave from February 26 through March 1. She requested the leave for February 26 through the 28th due to the trial, and the leave on March 1st was for the intended purpose of attending her grandfather’s 90th birthday party. She never informed the school or her parents that she had a trial; rather, she requested the leave for “personal reasons.” Ms. Lindstrand did not anticipate that she would be found guilty of the DUI charge, or that she would, upon being found guilty, be sentenced immediately to a period of incarceration. She had made no plans for that possibility. On February 28th, in the evening, Ms. Lindstrand called her father, Thomas Lindstrand, notifying him that she had been through the DUI trial, had been found guilty, and had been immediately incarcerated. Mr. Lindstrand informed his wife, and told her to call the school the next morning. Ms. Lindstrand’s mother called the school the morning of March 1st, and spoke with Ms. Estripeaut, an assistant principal at Cypress Bay High School. She informed Ms. Estripeaut that Ms. Lindstrand was in jail, and would remain in jail for a period of six weeks. Because Ms. Lindstrand was responsible for teaching seven math classes, which included classes where students are required to pass end-of-year tests in order to graduate, Ms. Estripeaut was tasked with the responsibility of finding a certified substitute teacher, with a math background, who could serve for a lengthy period of time. Once a qualified substitute teacher was selected, Ms. Estripeaut and the substitute teacher met with parents and students in order to reconcile grades in the grade books. Students reported that they had turned in assignments that were missing from the grade books, and parents were concerned about the students’ preparation for the end-of-year tests. On March 5th, Mr. Lindstrand called the school and spoke with Rebecca Johnson, who works as a Leave Specialist for the School Board. Ms. Johnson sent Mr. Lindstrand a leave request form, which he properly completed and filed on March 6, 2013. On approximately March 7th, Ms. Estripeaut contacted Mr. Lorenzo Calhoun, an Employee Relations Specialist for the School Board, and informed him that Ms. Lindstrand had been absent from work for three days without approved leave. Mr. Calhoun recommended that Ms. Lindstrand’s name be sent to the School Board for termination, because being absent from work for more than three days without approved leave constitutes abandonment under School Board policy. Prior to making his recommendation to Ms. Estripeaut, Mr. Calhoun confirmed with the Leave Department that Ms. Lindstrand had not been approved for leave for the three or more days that she had already been absent from work. When he called the Leave Department, she had not been approved for any leave. On March 7, 2013, a letter from the school, signed by the principal but prepared by Ms. Estripeaut, informed Ms. Lindstrand that her name was being forwarded to the School Board with the recommendation that she be terminated. It also informed her that her name would be placed on the meeting agenda for the School Board’s meeting on March 18, 2013. The letter was sent to the following address: “1408 NE 5 Ct. #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33301.” Ms. Lindstrand had lived at this address until August of 2012, at which point she moved to a different address, but never informed the school. Although Ms. Lindstrand had asked the post office to forward her mail to her new address, she never received this letter. On March 8, 2013, an almost identical letter was sent to Ms. Lindstrand from the Staffing Department, letting her know that her name was being forwarded to the School Board for termination, and that the School Board would meet on March 18, 2013. This letter was also sent to the only address on record for Ms. Lindstrand--an address where she no longer resided. According to Ms. Lindstrand, she never received this letter either. The Chief Human Resources Officer, Gracie Diaz, supervises the staffing department, leaves department, and employee relations department. On approximately March 7th, Ms. Diaz was informed that Ms. Lindstrand was incarcerated, and that the Cypress Bay High School principal and the staffing department were moving forward with the termination process. She was also informed that Ms. Lindstrand had requested personal leave. Ms. Diaz spoke with the School Board’s general counsel, and together they reviewed the collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and the School Board, which contained the following provision: Length of Leave: An employee who has been employed for more than three (3) years in Broward County may be granted upon request, personal leave without pay for a period not to exceed two (2) years for reasons not provided elsewhere in this Agreement. The employee shall be returned to duty at the beginning of the next school year following the leave. Such leave shall require the approval of the Superintendent. Ms. Diaz took the leave request form, as well as the letters from the principal and the staffing department regarding the termination process to the Superintendent. Given that the collective bargaining agreement leave provision is permissive in nature, Ms. Diaz recommended to the Superintendent that he deny the leave request, because she felt it was inappropriate to grant personal leave due to incarceration. She also recommended that the School Board go forward with termination. The School Board met on March 18, 2013, and voted to terminate Ms. Lindstrand’s employment. By letter dated March 22, 2013, the Leaves Department notified Ms. Lindstrand that her request for personal leave had been denied by the Superintendent. By letter dated April 9, 2013, Ms. Lindstrand was notified that the School Board had met and had approved the recommendation for her termination. Ms. Lindstrand was released from jail on April 6, 2013. She received these final two letters at the post office, a few days after being released.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Ms. Lindstrand’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 17th day of October, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Adrian Alvarez, Esquire Deborah Klauber, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A. Seventh Floor One Financial Plaza 100 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0442 Robert Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0442
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following bindings of fact: The Respondent, Consuelo DeArmendi, holds a Rank I Florida teaching certificate #399385, expiring June 30, 1987, authorizing her to teach foreign languages in secondary education. The Respondent has been employed as a foreign language teacher by the Dade County school system for approximately eight (8) years beginning in 1978. Respondent was initially employed at Miami Palmetto Senior High School for the 1978-79 school and taught at Highland Oaks Junior High School for the 1979-80 school year. Beginning with the 1980-81 school year, Respondent taught Spanish and French at Miami Carol City Senior High School where she remained until her suspension on June 4, 1986. 1980-81 SCHOOL YEAR During the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent was late or absent from Miami Carol City Senior High School on many instances and failed to call the school office as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook. According to the handbook, which is provided to all teachers, a teacher is required to notify the school prior to leaving if the teacher is aware that he or she will be absent the following day. A teacher may also call a designated member of the clerical staff between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. if they intend to be absent the following day but were unaware of the intended absence prior to leaving school. Finally, the teacher is allowed to report an unexpected absence to the school on the morning of the absence between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. Advance notice of an absence allows the school to secure substitute teacher coverage for the class. For the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was observed and evaluated by her principal and rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics because of repeated absences and tardiness. On February 10, 1981, the principal placed the Respondent on extended annual contract for failure to improve her attendance at work and failure to comply with school policy regarding teacher absences. 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 11, 1981 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 1, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 18, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent by Ms. Wally Lyshkov, the school district foreign language supervisor, conducted on April 15, 1982, resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques and Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships. Ms. Lyshkov's observation of Respondent's teaching techniques and materials revealed that Respondent had a multi- level class (Spanish II and III combined), but only used one set of lesson plans. The lesson plans did not include the variety of activities that are usually and normally found in a multi-level class. The students tended to ignore any directions that Respondent gave and there was little, if any, exchange with the students. There was almost no activity or active participation on the part of the students, and Respondent was generally unaware of what the students were doing. During the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent received assistance and recommendations from Ms. Lyshkov on handling multi-level classes and assistance in establishing various student-directed and teacher-directed activities. In Ms. Lyshkov's opinion, the Respondent did not demonstrate an ability to deliver quality education or instruction because of her ineffectiveness in transmitting her knowledge to the students. During the 1981-82 school year, the principal became concerned with Respondent's excessive number of absences and her failure to comply with the school's procedures for calling in and reporting absences. In addition, the principal had received several complaints from students and parents concerning Respondent's excessive absences. On March 8, 1982, the principal gave her a notice of not complying with procedures and requested a formal conference to discuss Respondent's excessive absenteeism and student complaints. On June 3, 1982, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by the principal and received an overall rating of acceptable. However, Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category VIII - Professional Responsibility, because of her consistent failure to follow guidelines in reporting her absences and her excessive number of absences which negatively impacted on the continuity of instruction provided to her students. In the Respondent's Annual Evaluation Report for the 1981-82 school year, the principal recommended that Respondent not be re-employed. The Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics (teacher contribution to total school program). Despite the principal's recommendation, Respondent was re-hired because she had already achieved continuing contract status. 1982-83 SCHOOL YEAR On January 26, 1983, the principal conducted a conference-for-the- record with Respondent. The conference was held because of Respondent's attendance record, lack of planning and failure to comply with instructions governing the reporting of absences. On several occasions, the Respondent failed to timely notify the school about her intention to be absent which resulted in difficulties obtaining a substitute teacher and often required another teacher to cover the Respondent's classes as well as his/her own class. In addition, teachers are required to have emergency lesson plans on file for use by substitute teachers when the primary teacher is absent. The Respondent did not have any emergency lesson plans on file. Respondent had been absent from her teaching assignment twenty-seven (27) days since the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. During the January 26, 1983 conference, Respondent informed the principal that she was taking medication (lithium) because of a manic-depressive disorder and that her most recent string of absences were due to a failure to take a proper dosage of the medication. The principal reminded Respondent of her responsibility to properly notify the school when she was going to be absent or tardy and referred her to the Employee Assistance Program. 1983-84 SCHOOL YEAR During October 1983, the Respondent was warned by the assistant principal on several occasions about her failure to properly inform the school regarding her absences. She was referred to the Faculty Handbook to review teacher's absences. Further, she was asked to prepare at least one week of emergency lesson plans to be used in her absence. Respondent did not prepare the emergency lesson plans as required. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 22, 1983 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning because she did not have adequate lesson plans for the subjects being taught. The lesson plans were not suitable for Respondent's mixed-level class because there was no distinction between student activities. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category IV - Techniques of Instruction because there was no distinction in instruction provided to the different levels and groups of students. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category V - Assessment Techniques because she did not follow school policy concerning grades which required at least one grade per week. There were only two or three grades on the roll book per student (this was the ninth week of school) and there was no rationale for the grades. Respondent did not maintain any records of student achievement other than what was on the roll book. Respondent was found "unacceptable" in Category VII - Professional Responsibility and Category VIII - Supportive Characteristics because of her excessive absences and her failure to follow proper procedure in reporting absences. The Respondent's excessive absences led to problems with continuity in student instruction as well as parental and student complaints. As a result of the observation on November 22, 1983, Respondent was given a prescription of planned activity which was designed to help her improve in these areas that had been rated unacceptable. On December 2, 1983, the Respondent was again warned by the assistant principal about reporting absences in a timely fashion. As was the case in most instances, the Respondent was absent and had failed to notify the school in a timely manner. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on January 19, 1984 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall rating of "unacceptable". In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VII - Professional Responsibility; and Category VII - Supportive Characteristics. For the 1983-84 school year, the principal rated Respondent as acceptable and recommended her for employment primarily because he had noted a sharp turnaround in Respondent's performance in the second half of the school year, starting in February, 1984. The principal knew that Respondent had been hospitalized in December 1983, and believed that as long as she was receiving medical attention and taking medication, she would be capable of performing in the classroom. 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR At the conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, the principal rated the Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment. 1985-86 SCHOOL YEAR On October 4, 1985, the principal held a conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her continued excessive absenteeism, failure to timely notify the school regarding her absences and numerous parent and student complaints regarding the instruction in Respondent's classroom. On October 4, 1985, the school year had been in session for students for twenty-two (22) days. The Respondent had been absent 10 days and had only completed one full week of school without an absence. At a conference on October 4, 1985 with the principal, Respondent indicated that she was under medication and that the problems she was experiencing would be corrected. On October 17, 1985, the assistant principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was rated overall as "acceptable", but was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management because of an apparent lack of control over the students in her classroom. When the assistant principal entered the classroom, the teacher was sitting at the desk and seemed to have little or no control over the students. Only four (4) or five (5) students were participating in the class discussion and the balance of the 25-30 students in the classroom were combing their hair, talking, eating or doing whatever they chose to do. When Respondent noted the presence of the assistant principal, she began to shout loudly at the class in an unsuccessful attempt to gain control. After the October 17 observation, the assistant principal gave Respondent a prescription for classroom management which required her to plan instructional activity to cover the entire hour of the class, establish a seating chart, separate talking students, plan activities with other Spanish teachers for instruction, work with the guidance counselor and make parental contacts with students who were disruptive in class. Respondent did not comply with or perform the planned activities set forth in the prescription. On November 6, 1985, the principal directed Respondent to provide a doctor's statement whenever she was absent because of illness. Respondent was absent after the directive and did not comply with it or provide an explanation for her absence. Between November, 1985 and early February, 1986, the Respondent took leave. She returned to work on February 14, 1986 and shortly thereafter continued her pattern of absences. In early March, 1986 the principal scheduled a conference for the record with Respondent for March 5, 1986 to discuss several student and parent complaints which the school had received. The Respondent was absent and did not attend the conference scheduled for March 5. Although the Respondent called the school to report an intended one day absence, the school did not hear anything from Respondent nor anything of her again until March 14, 1986. On March 14 a corrections officer contacted the school and stated that the Respondent was in the Women's Detention Center on a charge of battery and was being held pending a psychiatric examination at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Respondent was absent from her school assignment from March 5 until May 7, 1986. This absence negatively affected instructional continuity and the quality of education provided to the students in Respondent's classes. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent from her work assignment for at least eighty (80) days. At the conclusion of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was evaluated by her principal as "unacceptable" and was not recommended for employment. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management and professional responsibility. Throughout her period of employment, Respondent has undergone psychiatric medical treatment from at least five different physicians: Dr. Martinez, Dr. Garcia-Granda, Dr. Diaz, Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Vilasusa. Respondent has been diagnosed as a manic-depressive, characterized by periods of deep depression and/or extreme elation. It was uncontroverted that Respondent has an excellent command of her academic specialities--Spanish and French.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing Respondent from employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2274 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59 (2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment with a private contractor providing adult day training to developmentally disabled clients of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From April 2016 to October 2016, Petitioner Bertha Delaney ("Delaney") was employed by Cypress Place, Inc. ("Cypress"), a private, nonprofit corporation that provides services to developmentally disabled clients, and operates under the regulatory jurisdiction, of Respondent Agency for Persons with Disabilities ("APD"). Delaney was hired by Cypress as a receptionist, and her responsibilities included answering the phones, handling clerical tasks such as maintaining attendance sheets and filing, and assisting other employees as needed. Cypress operates an adult day training program, which offers "adult day training services" to APD clients. Such services include "training services that take place in a nonresidential setting, separate from the home or facility in which the client resides, and are intended to support the participation of clients in daily, meaningful, and valued routines of the community. Such training may be provided in work-like settings that do not meet the definition of supported employment." § 393.063(1), Fla. Stat. There is no persuasive evidence showing that, during her employment with Cypress, Delaney ever had face-to-face contact with a client while performing adult day training services. She was not, therefore, a "direct service provider" as that term is defined in section 393.063(13), Florida Statutes. Delaney did, however, have incidental, in-person interactions with clients, the evidence establishes, occasionally assisting clients in need of immediate help. Thus, although Delaney did not provide training services to clients, she provided some services in the broader sense of "helpful acts." In early August of 2016, an incident involving a client occurred at Cypress's facility, which the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") investigated. In the course of the investigation, the DCF investigator interviewed Delaney and learned that, because the subject client had appeared to be limping on the day in question, Delaney had helped the client walk from the bus to the building. At the time, Delaney had not yet undergone level 2 background screening because Cypress had not instructed her to do so. Rather, in or around April 2016, when she was hired, Cypress had required Delaney to go to the police department for a local criminal background check, which she did. Delaney, in fact, did everything that Cypress asked her to do with regard to background screening. Soon after (and perhaps because of) the DCF investigation, Cypress directed Delaney to submit to a level 2 background review, which she did.1/ And so it happened that in late August 2016, a search of Delaney's criminal history was performed, and the results were forwarded to DCF, which administers the background screening process for APD. By letter dated October 3, 2016, DCF notified Delaney that it had discovered her criminal conviction on a charge of grand theft of the third degree, to which she had pleaded no contest on June 13, 2001. This crime is a "disqualifying offense" under the applicable screening standards, which means that Delaney is ineligible to work as a direct service provider without an exemption from such disqualification. DCF advised Delaney that she needed to quit her job at Cypress and obtain an exemption from disqualification if she wanted to resume working there. Delaney promptly resigned her position with Cypress. Delaney then sought an exemption from disqualification from employment, submitting her Request for Exemption to DCF in November 2016. By letter dated March 17, 2017, APD informed Delaney that it intended to deny her request based solely on the ground that Delaney had "not submitted clear and convincing evidence of [her] rehabilitation." In other words, APD determined as a matter of ultimate fact that Delaney was not rehabilitated, which meant (as a matter of law) that the head of the agency had no discretion to grant an exemption.2/ APD did not, as an alternative basis for its proposed agency action, articulate any rationale for denying the exemption notwithstanding a showing of rehabilitation, assuming arguendo that such had been made. Delaney initiated the instant proceeding, hoping to prove her rehabilitation. The undersigned has considered the evidence as it relates to the statutory criteria for assessing rehabilitation, and makes the following findings of fact as a predicate for the ultimate determination. The Circumstances Surrounding the Criminal Incident. In or around September of 2000, Delaney stole cash receipts from her employer, Blockbuster Video, totaling approximately $13,800.00. She was soon arrested and charged with grand theft of the third degree, a felony offense as defined in section 812.014, Florida Statutes. At the time of the offense, Delaney, then 25 years old, was experiencing financial difficulties raising two young daughters. Although married, Delaney managed the household mostly on her own, as her husband, an interstate truck driver, was often on the road. Exercising what she now acknowledges was poor judgment, Delaney stole her employer's funds to ease her personal financial burden. On June 13, 2001, appearing before the Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Delaney entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charge, was convicted by plea (adjudication withheld), and was sentenced to two years' probation with orders to make restitution in the amount of $13,778.00 to Blockbuster. Delaney completed her term of probation and complied with all of the other conditions imposed by the court, including the payment of restitution. The Time Period That Has Elapsed since the Incident. The disqualifying offense was committed about 17 years ago. Delaney thus has had ample time to restore her reputation and usefulness to society as a law abiding citizen following her conviction, and to mature into an older, more responsible adult. The Nature of the Harm Caused to the Victim. Delaney did not cause personal injury to any person in the commission of her crime. She was ordered to make restitution to the victim, and did, although the details of this transaction are not available in the record. Therefore, the economic harm caused by Delaney's theft appears to have been minimal. The History of the Applicant since the Incident. Since her conviction, Delaney has completed a training program to become a patient care technician and obtained a license to practice in Florida as a certified nursing assistant. She has held positions in these fields and performed admirably. Delaney lives with her two adult daughters, son-in-law, grandson, and fiancé; her current family situation is stable, both emotionally and financially. Her civil rights have been restored. She has not reoffended or otherwise run afoul of the law. APD severely faults Delaney for a so-called nondisclosure in her response to a question on the exemption request form concerning previous employment. The form asks the applicant to "provide your employment history for the last three years." Delaney answered, in relevant part, by stating: "I have not been employed for the last three (3) years." She followed this statement by describing employment predating "the last three (3) years" and explaining that an ankle injury in May 2013 (which required multiple surgeries to repair), together with the attendant convalescence and rehabilitation, had kept her out of the workforce for a couple of years. APD argues that Delaney lied about her employment history——it is undisputed that she had, in fact, worked (for Cypress) during the three years preceding her request for an exemption——and that this alleged "lie" proves Delaney had known not only that she was required to undergo level 2 background screening before taking the job with Cypress, but also that such screening would reveal her disqualifying criminal conviction, and that, therefore, to avoid detection, she had worked without being screened, in knowing violation of law. Put aside for the moment the issue of fact regarding whether Delaney "lied" about her employment history. APD's argument (that this "lie" is proof of Delaney's knowing violation of the background screening law) is illogical. For even if (as a matter of fact3/) Delany were required to be screened, and even if (as a matter of law4/) the background screening statutes were personally violable by an applicant or employee, Delaney's allegedly fraudulent answer to the employment history question does not rationally lead to the conclusion that she knew either of these premises to be true. Moreover, as discussed in endnote 1, it is unacceptable for an agency to rely upon an applicant's alleged violation of a regulatory statute as grounds to deny an exemption request where such alleged violation has never been proved in an enforcement proceeding. This is because any person charged with committing a disciplinable offense must be served with an administrative complaint and afforded clear notice of the right to a hearing, at which, if timely requested, the agency must prove the alleged wrongdoing by clear and convincing evidence. APD wants to skip all that and just have the undersigned find here, for the first time, that Delaney clearly violated section 393.0655 by working at Cypress for at least six months without being screened. See Resp.'s PRO at 9. That's not happening. The only relevant finding in this regard, which the undersigned makes, is that Delaney has never been found to have violated section 393.0655 by working at Cypress for at least six months without being screened. As for the alleged "lie," APD's position that Delaney's response to the employment history question was knowingly and intentionally false (by omitting reference to Cypress) does not make sense, because DCF already knew (from investigating an unrelated matter) that Delaney had worked for Cypress, and Delaney knew that DCF was aware of this fact when she filled out the form. That cat was out of the bag. At hearing, Delaney testified credibly and convincingly that she had not intended to mislead DCF. It is clear that she interpreted the question as asking about her employment during the three years before the job from which she had been disqualified (as opposed to the three years before completing the exemption request form). She misunderstood the question, to be sure, but it was an honest mistake, and the undersigned can appreciate how a person in Delaney's shoes could conclude that the job from which one has recently been disqualified does not "count" towards her employment history for purposes of seeking an exemption from disqualification. Delaney's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the fact that she submitted to DCF, as part of her exemption request package, two letters of recommendation from employees of Cypress, written on Cypress letterhead, attesting to her good character. These letters, taken together, make it clear that Delaney had recently been an employee of Cypress. Obviously, if Delaney had intended, knowingly, to deceive DCF by concealing her employment with Cypress, she would not have provided these letters. APD argues that one of these letters, from Rashard Williams, which is dated October 27, 2016, does not specifically indicate that Delaney ever worked at Cypress——and thus does not bolster Delaney's testimony that she never intended to conceal the fact that she had. To reach this conclusion one must discount the writer's statement that "Ms. Delaney has proven herself to be reliable, trustworthy, and compassionate both as a person and as an employee." If the Williams letter were the only written recommendation from a Cypress employee, however, the undersigned would consider APD's interpretation to be, while certainly not the best or most reasonable, at least plausible in view of Mr. Williams's additional comments about how well Delaney took care of his grandmother in a capacity, apparently, other than as an employee of Cypress. But the companion to the Williams letter, a recommendation from Mark Chmiel dated October 24, 2016, leaves no room for doubt that Delaney was a recent employee of Cypress. A short, two-sentence excerpt suffices to support this finding: "Bertha is an invaluable addition to our agency [i.e., Cypress,] and she has fulfilled the potential of her position far better than anyone before her. Her moral character is beyond reproach and I have no qualms about trusting her with our clients."5/ The letters of recommendation that Delaney furnished DCF refute the notion that she knowingly omitted Cypress from her employment history with the intent to mislead DCF. They prove, instead, that Delaney took for granted DCF's knowledge of her work for Cypress, for she was certain DCF already knew about it. In turn, that foundational assumption (which, in fact, was true) prompted Delaney to provide a history of her employment during the several years leading up to the job with Cypress. The undersigned finds that Delaney is not guilty of knowingly withholding material information from DCF in response to the question about her previous employment. Finally, the undersigned observes that APD, in its preliminary decision-making, impermissibly allowed speculation and conjecture to take the place of facts. In forming its intent to deny Delaney's application, APD took into account the "possibility that Ms. Delaney was trying to protect Cypress Place from demonstrating that they were in violation of the screening laws" as well as the "possibility that Rashard Williams might have tried to hide the fact [sic6/] that there was a violation of the screening requirements by Cypress Place." Resp.'s PRO at 10 (emphasis added). On the basis of this rank speculation, APD conjectured that "Ms. Delaney was willing to collude with [Cypress employees] in order not to spotlight their violation of the licensing law." Resp.'s PRO at 18. APD proved none of this imaginative guesswork. Circumstances Showing Applicant Poses No Danger. Yvonne Ginsberg, the executive director of Cypress, testified in support of Delaney's application. Ms. Ginsberg stated that Delaney was an "excellent" employee and affirmed that she had "no qualms" about Delaney's returning to work at Cypress once an exemption has been secured. The undersigned credits Ms. Ginsberg's testimony as to Delaney's character. In addition, Delaney submitted the written character references of Messrs. Chmiel and Williams, which were discussed above. These documents credibly attest to Delaney's trustworthiness, integrity, and ethical behavior. The undersigned finds without hesitation that Delaney would likely not present a danger in the future if an exemption from disqualification were granted. Ultimate Factual Determination The undersigned has determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, including sufficient persuasive evidence of rehabilitation, that Delaney should not be disqualified from employment because she is, in fact, rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order granting Bertha Delaney the exemption from disqualification for which she is, in fact, eligible. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2017.
