The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of the acts charged in the specific notice of charges dated September 11, 1990, and, if so, whether petitioner should discharge him from his job as a school bus driver or take other disciplinary action?
Findings Of Fact After orientation and instruction beginning with his employment as a school bus driver trainee in September of 1987, respondent "was given [his] first bus" (T.383) on December 9, 1987. Formerly a truck driver, he became a permanent or non-probationary school bus driver in March of 1988. 1987-1988 After respondent drove his first route, No. 131, for two days, a supervisor shifted him to route No. 94, telling him "what a troubled bus it was." T.386. The supervisor told him the middle school students had already had plenty of warnings and exhorted him, "'Quit warning them. Write them up.'" Id. The rest of the 1987-1988 school year, respondent drove route No. 94, which entailed two separate runs, one for kindergarteners and one for middle schoolers. On the middle school run, "90 percent of the children wouldn't mind at all." T.392. The first of March or the end of February of 1988 (T.64), respondent Henderson told Rosalyn Brown, at the time the only black student on the bus, "to sit [her] black ass down in the seat." T.269. On other occasions, he told students to "[s]hut the hell up," (T.270) and said, "I won't put up with this bullshit." Id. He used the word "[f]uck . . . sometimes." T.256. Petitioner's official school board policies, a copy of which respondent received at or about the time he began work, state: Drivers shall at all times set good examples for the students riding their buses. Do not do on your bus that which students are not permitted to do. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, No. 6.44.9. Hernando County School Bus Rules, Instructions for Pupils Riding Buses provides, "Pupils must not use any abusive or profane language to other pupils, the driver, or pedestrians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, No. 10(b). On May 23, 1988, middle school girls were seated on the right hand side of the bus and boys on the left, as usual. As the bus, with respondent at the wheel, passed prisoners at work on a shoulder of the road, "the girls started leaning out the window hollering." (T.396) Mr. Henderson had hardly told them to close their windows when, while waiting for a traffic light to change, a "car pulled up beside [him, and the driver] complained that the boys w[ere] throwing paper out the windows at the back," (T.397) so he "informed the boys to close their windows," (id.) too. When, windows closed (except for respondent's), the bus began to resound with the sound of "stomping . . . feet" (T.397), Mr. Henderson pulled the bus over and parked by the side of the road. Unable to restore order, he drove the bus back to middle school. There respondent allowed the students to lower their windows, and the "duty teacher" urged them to behave. To respondent, the duty teacher said "if they didn't quiet down, take them on into Brooksville," (T.398) to the bus barn. Because the students were still unruly five minutes later, respondent drove them from the school to the transportation compound, where a mechanic boarded the bus to help maintain order, while respondent drove the children home. No violation of school board policy on Mr. Henderson's part was proven, in connection with the events of May 23, 1988. Limbs protruding and various missiles leaving through open windows justified his directing that the windows be closed. The radio in respondent's bus at the time was not in working order. Petitioner's official policies require that each "bus driver shall be responsible for being familiar with all state and local laws and regulations in regard to safety and see that these are properly carried out." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.4. At stop signs, respondent would "slow down, but he wouldn't come to a complete stop" (T.271) every time. When he failed to come to a complete stop, "the students would always yell at him about it." T.277. 1988-1989 Respondent resumed driving route No. 94 when school started in the fall of 1988. One day the first week back two fights broke out before the bus left middle school, and the new principal had to intervene. Later in the week, Joan Gear, petitioner's transportation coordinator told Mr. Henderson, "'Ray, we're going to prove a point to this principal. I want you to take another bus for a while.'" T.402 (Discipline problems persisted under respondent's successor on bus No. 94.) Mr. Henderson began the second week of the new school year driving route No. 108. After a week on route No. 108, he was transferred, without explanation, to route No. 73, one of the routes he had been on as a trainee and a less remunerative assignment than either No. 94 or No. 108. Only after the first Monday morning's run did he receive the No. 73 route report or route sheet, which listed twelve regularly scheduled stops. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B. The tenth morning stop was listed as "White House on Right," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B, on Ft. Dade Street. The white house meant stands north of Ft. Dade and slightly east of Little People's Day Care, which is on the south side of the street. Brandy Huntley, a niece of the day care center's proprietress, and two other middle schoolers were picked up mornings directly across the street from the white house, at the end of the day care center driveway. The first afternoon he drove, respondent stopped directly in front of the white house, and Brandy and the other middle schoolers disembarked there. But two afternoons that week (not in succession) he failed to stop in front of the white house (or across the street from Little People's Day Care.) Instead he stopped after turning left at the next intersection. Respondent's claim that a ditch made it necessary to stop in the middle of the road, if the bus stopped in front of the white house or across from the nursery afternoons, went unrebutted; but letting children out around the corner created other hazards. Nor was the spot respondent chose a "regularly scheduled stop" for any student. School board policy provides that "[a] driver shall not let any student off the bus at other than the student's regularly scheduled stop, unless permission has been given in writing by the child's parent." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.18. No such permission had been given here. Under school board policy, bus drivers may never let students off between regularly scheduled stops. After a discussion about where to stop on Ft. Dade Street in the afternoons and before his first week on route No. 73 was out, respondent took a leave of absence through November 22, 1988. Once the leave was over, petitioner's initial refusal to put him back to work resulted in respondent's filing an unfair labor practice charge. On January 18, 1989, he returned to work. For the remainder of the school year, he drove route No. 75, without incident. Two Minutes Time allotted for regular routes includes a half hour for cleaning and paper work, but drivers on field trips are paid based on the time actually required to do the job. On July 18, 1989, Mr. Henderson drove on a field trip. Ordinarily, a field trip driver completes and submits a form showing how long he has worked, only after making the trip and cleaning the bus. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 13; T. 423. Rain made for an early end to the field trip. At five minutes after noon on the 18th, Mr. Henderson set out for the restroom in the transportation compound offices. He took with him a form on which he had written 12:30, his estimate of when he would finish cleaning the bus. Leaving the form on Miss Looper's desk, he returned to the bus and began cleaning. After he had cleaned the bus, he returned to the compound office, which he reached at 12:28. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11, 13, T. 423. When Ms. Gear asked him to substitute 12:28 for 12:30 on the form, he responded, "Joan, if you want the time changed, change it." (T.424) When she said, "I won't pay you if you don't change it," Id., he replied, "Don't pay me." Id. A month later, the unaltered form was processed and respondent was paid. Whether two minutes made any difference in his compensation for the field trip the evidence did not show. 1989-1990 When the next school year began, Mr. Henderson drove route No. 200. One October afternoon after students had boarded, Mr. Henderson prepared to pull away from the high school. Before moving forward, the bus rolled back a few inches into the bus driven by Jose Santiago. Without respondent's knowing, a tail light lens struck (without damaging) a mirror on Santiago's bus, leaving a hole in the lens two inches across. T. 287-291, 376, 429. Accidents of this kind are not uncommon. To prevent students' walking in front of buses, the drivers park them tightly one behind another before school lets out. T. 287-291, 342, 376, 377, 426, 530. By the time Mr. Santiago finished his route and reached the transportation compound, Mr. Henderson had already left. Mr. Santiago reported the accident to the office staff and to one of the mechanics, who brought the bus respondent had driven to the garage to replace the lens. But Mark Tallent told the mechanic to return the bus unrepaired to its regular parking place, setting a "trap" he had never set for any other driver. T. 24, 58, 59, 288, 378. Bus drivers are required to perform a "pre-trip inspection" of their buses, and make records of the inspections by completing forms. Petitioner requires that all exterior lights be checked. The next morning respondent indicated that everything was in working order on his pre-trip inspection form. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7; T. 39. Ken Schill, petitioner's safety officer, followed respondent's bus in another vehicle and pulled him over. Together they inspected the broken lens. Petitioner suspended Henderson for three days and required him to take eight hours of in-service training, on account of the inspection form's inaccuracy. T. 40-41, 95-96, 428-429. In January or February, Mr. Henderson's bus was following bus No. 149 on a dusty rock or gravel road. After bus No. 149 made a newly scheduled stop, Mr. Henderson braked suddenly and steered his bus to the left to avoid hitting bus No. 149. By the time he came to a stop, the buses overlapped. T. 454, 498, 502. On the afternoon of February 28, 1990, Mr. Henderson had driven the school bus to the crest of a hill on Weatherley Road, when state trooper Lee Frye, who was sitting in his car at the bottom of (the other side of) the hill "clocked Mr. Henderson speeding." T.151. He was exceeding the 35-mile-per hour speed limit by at least ten miles per hour, although he told the trooper the speedometer had not indicated this. T. 151, 157, 430-433; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7A. Trooper Frye did not give Mr. Henderson a citation, but he told the Board's transportation department that the bus was going 52 miles per hour. Although not consistently enforced, school Board Policy 6.44(23) states: "Any bus driver guilty of a traffic violation involving a school bus will be dismissed." After Mr. Tallent checked Henderson's speedometer, he recommended and the School Board approved a suspension of ten days plus fifteen hours' retraining on account of this incident. T. 44-45, 151-157, 430-436. One afternoon on Willow Street respondent veered to avoid a car and knocked over at least two empty, lidless, rubber trashcans standing approximately one foot from the right edge of the road. When, back at the compound, Mr. Henderson told Mark Tallent about the accident, Mr. Tallent said to forget about it. T. 437-444, 496. On another afternoon, Scott Robinson, a student who had just gotten off bus No. 200, was approximately 6 or 7 feet in front of the bus when he heard the engine revving. Although Scott did not see the bus move forward, he was frightened, and the bus in fact "jerked." T. 133-148. The next morning, Mr. Henderson inquired "You really didn't think I was going to hit you, did you?" T.134. Another time the bus lurched forward while Kathy Black "was still in front of the bus" (T.252) "and about hit her." Id. Tom Ferris complained that Henderson almost hit another bus. Cathy Smith, a parent of a student on route No. 200 filed a complaint on April 30, 1990, claiming that he failed to stop for her daughter at her regularly scheduled stop. On May 3, 1990, petitioner received a three-page list of 21 complaints against Mr. Henderson, accompanied by a petition with 20 names on it, both written by Kim Lowe, a student on route No. 200 whom respondent had frequently disciplined. On May 4, 1990, another parent, Mr. Burris, complained to Mr. Tallent that he had observed respondent speeding and driving recklessly. T. 46-51, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Earlier during the 1989-90 school year, petitioner's Department of Transportation had received still other complaints about Mr. Henderson. On May 3 or 4, 1990, without offering any explanation, Mr. Tallent told respondent he need no longer report for work. He did not tell Mr. Henderson of the complaints Ms. Smith and Messers. Burris and Ferris had made or give him an opportunity to refute their allegations prior to the filing of formal charges.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss respondent as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 through 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the school year was 1987-1988. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the complaint included the words "god damn." With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the evidence showed things were being thrown out of the bus. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46, 48, 49 and 50, it was not proven that other drivers reported every accident, however minor, or did so before leaving the scene, and respondent did report hitting the trashcans. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 64 refers to a complaint that was not proven at hearing. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 65 is not supported by citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what she thought other than that she was "stunned looking." Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 through 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, she testified she was the only black. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, a "duty teacher" boarded the bus and spoke to the children. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the morning stop was across the street from the white house. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, students calling out alerted him the buses had collided. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the policy has not been enforced consistently. COPIES FURNISHED: John T. Jaszczak, Esquire Hogg, Allen, North & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 S. Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1700 Dr. Daniel L. McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. 41 North Brooksville, FL 34601
The Issue The issue is whether Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 (“the Union”) committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner (“Addie L. McMillan”) by failing to provide her with the same level of advocacy provided to Union members and non-African-Americans.
Findings Of Fact Ms. McMillan is a 55-year-old, African-American female who had worked at ECAT for 22 years. She began as a part-time beach trolley operator and progressed to becoming a full-time bus driver. The Union and ECAT had a labor agreement1/ in place between October 23, 2013, and September 30, 2016 (“the labor agreement”). Article 52 of the labor agreement had a policy regarding the use of cell phones by ECAT employees and provided as follows: While on duty the use of cellular phone or any other personal communication device is limited as follows: SECTION 1: The use by an employee of a cellular phone or any other personal communication device while behind the wheel of a transit vehicle, or any other Company motor vehicle is prohibited while the vehicle is not secured. Push to talk communication devices issued by the Company may be used for work related purposes only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law, but must be used in a manner, which would not create an unsafe situation. Note – Secured definition: Vehicle must be in neutral/park position and emergency brake on. SECTION 2: If it becomes necessary to use a cellular phone, employees must be at the end of the line/trip (on layover, if applicable) or in a safe location with the bus secure. At no time is it permissible to use a cellular phone if the use will cause the trip to be late at its next scheduled time point. SECTION 3: The use of a cellular phone or other communication device by an employee while on the shop floor or during work time (unless previously approved) is prohibited, other than a Push to Talk communication device issued by the Company for work related purposes, and only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law. Federal and State law supersede the above policy. SECTION 4: Disciplinary Action: Failure to comply with any portion of this policy may result in disciplinary action as follows: Violation of Section 2 or Section 3 of this Article: 1st offense: 3-day suspension 2nd offense: Termination Violation of Section 1 of this Article: 1st offense: Termination On the morning of July 29, 2015, Ms. McMillan was driving a route that went through the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. At that time, the navy base had been on alert status for approximately one month. As a result, every vehicle entering the navy base had to be searched, and that caused Ms. McMillan’s bus to run behind schedule. At approximately 10:30 that morning, Ms. McMillan needed to use a bathroom and called a dispatcher via a radio provided by ECAT. The dispatcher contacted by Ms. McMillan was not receptive to her request for a bathroom break and cut off communications. Because Ms. McMillan was unsuccessful in re- establishing contact with the dispatcher over the radio, she used her personal cell phone to call a coworker, Elaine Wiggins. Ms. McMillan was hoping that Ms. Wiggins could assist her with contacting an ECAT general manager. At this point in time, the bus driven by Ms. McMillan was in traffic and moving. In other words, it was not “secured” by being in the neutral/park position with the emergency brake on. Diane Hall was an assistant general manager for ECAT during the time period at issue, and Ms. Hall talked to Ms. McMillan via Ms. Wiggins’ cell phone. Ms. Hall stated to Ms. McMillan that the route she was driving had a pre-arranged break point at a bowling alley and that Ms. McMillan could use a bathroom there. It is possible that Ms. McMillan would not have suffered any consequences for her violation of the cell phone policy but for a customer complaint provided to ECAT on July 28, 2015. On July 28, 2015, at 12:25 p.m., Roberta Millender, a customer service representative at ECAT, received a phone call from a customer who reported that the bus driver for Route 57 had left the bus at approximately 11:00 a.m. in order to smoke a cigarette, even though the bus was 25 minutes behind schedule. Ms. McMillan also drives that route. ECAT’s buses are equipped with video cameras. Therefore, ECAT reviewed the videotape from that particular bus in order to investigate the complaint. Because the bus videotapes are on a continuous loop, ECAT had to pull video corresponding to days before and after July 28, 2015. While looking for the incident on July 28, 2015, that led to the customer complaint, an ECAT employee noticed that Ms. McMillan was using her cell phone on July 29, 2015. There is no dispute that Ms. McMillan is not the bus driver who took the cigarette break on July 28, 2015.2/ On July 30, 2015, ECAT began an investigation of Ms. McMillan’s cell phone use. ECAT notified Ms. McMillan that she would continue to work during the investigation. ECAT terminated Ms. McMillan on August 3, 2015, for violating section 1 of Article 52 of the labor agreement. Article 5 of the labor agreement sets forth the procedures that ECAT and the Union follow in order to resolve labor issues. Pursuant to Section 2 of Article 5, Michael Lowery, the President of the Union, filed an “Official Grievance Form” (“the McMillan grievance”) with Mike Crittenden, ECAT’s General Manager. Ms. McMillan had reservations about Mr. Lowery handling her grievance. Because she had not joined a recent strike and was not a Union member, Ms. McMillan feared that Mr. Lowery would not use his best efforts on her behalf. However, Mr. Lowery handles the majority of the grievances, and he handles all of the grievances involving termination.3/ The McMillan grievance stated the following: The employee does not dispute the offered video and will stipulate that she used her personal cellphone while operating a transit bus while not secure. This professional bus operator understood the Company policy but did not clearly understand the proper procedure to request assistance to disembark her motor coach while under tremendous physical bodily stress to relieve herself of a bodily function. Operator McMillan understood the procedure to request a 10-7 (Operator off Motor Coach) but was concerned with her bodily stress and finding a safe, clean rest room which was continuing to cause significant additional stress. The Company has clearly FAILED to work at providing known secure, clean, safe facilities for professional bus operators to utilize while operating ECAT buses. The Union has brought this topic forward to Management numerous times and no action has been taken to formulate the needs of the professional bus operators on many bus routes including the bus route that Operator McMillan was driving on the day in question. Operator McMillan was dealing with other related stress on that particular run. The military base was under alert and traffic was extremely backed up. She was dealing with one Dispatcher Supervisor and had reached agreement with him on how to proceed on the bus route. But when another Dispatch Supervisor came on duty it was clear that neither of those Supervisors had shared information on dealing with Route 57 with the military heighten[ed] alert. The new Dispatch was difficult to communicate with about established procedures set earlier with another Dispatcher. This did not help the already adverse or very demanding circumstance. Mr. Lowery concluded the grievance by asking that ECAT rescind its termination of Ms. McMillan, pay her lost wages and benefits, and remove any discipline from her file. Ordinarily, the first step in resolving a grievance involves settlement discussions between ECAT officials and the Union. However, because Ms. McMillan’s grievance involved a termination, it went directly to Mr. Crittenden for his consideration. Via an e-mail dated August 4, 2015, Mr. Crittenden notified Mr. Lowery that he was “denying this grievance and upholding the termination of the subject employee.” Because Ms. McMillan’s grievance was denied, the next step in the process called for the Union to decide whether it wanted to submit the grievance to arbitration.4/ As part of this next step, Mr. Crittenden prepared a draft version of a “Last Chance Agreement” for the Union to review. A Last Chance Agreement is an agreement between an employee, ECAT, and the Union. The draft Last Chance Agreement prepared by Mr. Crittenden contained the following provisions: The employee violated the Company’s cell phone [policy] which is a serious safety infraction that warrants immediate termination. In lieu of terminating her employment, the Employee’s discipline record will reflect this infraction as suspended without pay from August 3, 2015 to August 14, 2015 and returning to work on August 17, 2015 upon acceptance of this agreement, and placed on a twelve month probation/Last Chance Agreement. The employee will retain her rate of pay and security. The employee understands that in the event she violates company policy by being charged with any infraction that warrants immediate termination, her employment will be terminated without any further consideration. This agreement will be in effect for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of signature. The Employee attests that her signature below was in no way coerced by any party or by the representative of any party. By entering into this agreement, the employee acknowledges that she has read and considered each of the provisions of this Agreement and that she voluntarily enters into this Agreement with full knowledge of the consequences. This Agreement is made on a one-time only, non-precedent basis that shall not be used or referred to in any future discipline or termination case or during any grievance/arbitration hearings between the parties. Mr. Lowery presented the proposed Last Chance Agreement to the Union’s legal counsel, and the Union had an issue with the seventh provision’s reference to “non-precedent basis.” Mr. Lowery attempted to reach an agreement with Mr. Crittenden for amending that provision, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Mr. Crittenden would not consent to the removal of that language. Ms. McMillan was disturbed by the fact that she had no input into the Last Chance Agreement proposed by Mr. Crittenden and that it was not presented to her for approval. However, after the Union decided not to accept Mr. Crittenden’s proposal, Ms. McMillan’s approval or disapproval became irrelevant. As noted above, a Last Chance Agreement involves three consenting parties: the employee, ECAT, and the Union. Thus, even if Ms. McMillan had been satisfied with the Last Chance Agreement proposed by Mr. Crittenden, it would not go into effect without the Union’s approval. In order for the Union’s Executive Board to vote on whether to refer Ms. McMillan’s case to arbitration, Mr. Lowery put Ms. McMillan’s grievance on the agenda of the Executive Board’s August 23, 2015, meeting. The five members of the Executive Board who were present and eligible to vote unanimously recommended against pursuing arbitration for Ms. McMillan’s grievance because her case lacked merit. As for why Ms. McMillan’s case lacked merit, Mr. Lowery testified that Well, basically, it’s pretty simple, we negotiated the policy in the labor agreement, and this was a video. And the video showed that she had clearly violated the policy. And so from there, it was going to be very difficult, based on that evidence, that we were not going to be able to go forward. And that’s why the membership voted not to go forward. The Executive Board’s recommendation was considered by the full Union membership later that day, and the Union voted to accept the Executive Board’s recommendation. When asked to explain why the Union elected not to arbitrate Ms. McMillan’s grievance, Mr. Lowery testified that Simply it’s the severity of the policy, which was it’s in the labor agreement. It was negotiated between the Union and the company. And because they had a solid video, we would not be able to demonstrate a way to achieve a victory in that arbitration case. And, potentially, because it’s in the Labor Agreement, that would be used against us in an arbitration because we negotiated it. We negotiated the policy. When subsequently asked a very similar question, Mr. Lowery reiterated that Well, basically, it’s pretty simple, we negotiated the policy in the labor agreement, and this was a video. And the video showed that she had clearly violated the policy. And so from there, it was going to be very difficult, based on that evidence, that we were not going to be able to go forward. And that’s why the membership voted not to go forward. The Union has not arbitrated any grievances in which a driver has been terminated for using a cell phone while a bus was not secured. Including Ms. McMillan, four drivers have been terminated for violating section 1 of Article 52 since the labor agreement has been in place. Three of those drivers were African-American (two females and one male), and one was a Caucasian female. Mr. Crittenden was unaware of any driver being retained by ECAT after violating the cell phone policy.5/ In addition to Mr. Crittenden, Ms. McMillan called three other ECAT employees who were unaware of any bus driver being retained after violating the cell phone policy. Mr. Lowery represents every grievance to the best of his ability, and he represented Ms. McMillan’s grievance to the best of his ability. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that he handled Ms. McMillan’s grievance no differently than any other grievance.6/ Mr. Lowery did not consider Ms. McMillan’s race or religion in the course of representing her.7/ The Union did not discriminate against Ms. McMillan based on her race or non-union status. In addition, to whatever extent that Ms. McMillan is alleging that she was discriminated against on any other grounds, there is no evidence to support such allegations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Addie L. McMillan’s Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was reemployed as a substitute or hourly teacher on a noncontractual basis after he was retired for one month.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Board for several years as a driver's education teacher prior to his retirement. This position is a certificated teaching position under the rules of the State Department of Education. The operation of school buses in Duval County was and is done primarily by private companies, who are independent contractors and who, in turn, hire the bus drivers. Several years ago, the State of Florida required by law that all school bus drivers be certified as school bus drivers at the time of their initial employment. The Superintendent of Schools of Duval County instituted a program to certify its school bus drivers using Board personnel. Certificated driver's education teachers were asked to become qualified with the State to evaluate and test school bus drivers to insure that the drivers were in compliance with State law. Rule 6A-3.0141, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. All of the bus driver evaluators were driver's education instructors. Petitioner was one of the driver's education teachers who qualified and was employed to evaluate and test school bus drivers. The job of the Petitioner and other evaluators was to educate and test the drivers about the bus safety rules, to include "check" rides with drivers before certifying them. The school bus driver certification program is operated by the Board on a full-time basis, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. There is a written job description for the position of driver's education teacher which was not changed or amended to reflect the additional duties of bus driver evaluation. Prior to retiring, Petitioner worked as a driver's education teacher on a full-time basis (7 hours, 20 minutes per day) and performed the duties as evaluator and tester of the drivers after school and on Saturdays. He was paid a salary for his teaching duties and an additional amount for his services as bus driver evaluator. Although Petitioner received one compensation check, the payroll stub indicated regular and overtime pay. His additional compensation was calculated on the basis of hours actually worked and from the salary schedule for part-time teachers. Funding for regular work and overtime was charged to the same cost account, "1850", and all his pay was based upon his duties as a certified teacher in pay classification "0610." The payroll code for a driver's education teacher is "0610". The Board did not have a pay code for a bus driver evaluator. Evaluating bus drivers is an additional duty performed by driver's education teachers. Pay classification code "0610" is applicable to all driver's education teachers; and the Petitioner, as well as all of the driver's education teachers, was compensated from the instructional salary account of the Board. Although all bus driver evaluators were driver's education teachers, not all driver's education teachers were bus driver evaluators. Additional duty as a bus driver evaluator was voluntary, and driver's education teachers were paid additional compensation for performing these duties. Their entire pay, including the additional compensation, was charged to Responsibility Center No. 1850 - Driver's Education. Cost center code "1850" is a cost code associated with academic programs. Petitioner was rehired as a teacher after retirement and placed in pay category "0610". This was done because the only persons performing bus driver evaluations in Duval County are driver's education teachers, and no other classification or pay code is applicable. Petitioner was placed in salary code "0610", driver's education teacher. Messrs. Richard and Boney were Petitioner's supervisors and they did the administrative portion of certifying the drivers. Richard and Boney are "administrators" with the Board and not certificated or instructional personnel. A person is classified as a teacher on the basis of (a) the union collective bargaining agreement and (b) the rules of the Public Employees' Relation Commission. It is up to the supervisor to assign the person's duties. Those duties would determine the salary code from which the person would be paid. Petitioner retired under the FRS, effective July 1, 1989, and was placed on the FRS payroll on that date. In July of 1989, he completed a Board form by which he made himself available for reemployment. Petitioner was rehired in August as a driver's education teacher, pay classification "0610", cost center "1850". His supervisor assigned him duties as a bus driver evaluator and tester beginning on August 21, 1990. Petitioner worked part of the months of August, September and October of 1989 and was paid at the rate of $15.85 per hour, the same rate and from the same account as other hourly teachers, "1850". (Exhibit No. 6). While so employed, he could have taught the classroom phase of the evaluation program or could have been assigned to teach driver's education; however, Petitioner only did the road test and evaluation of bus drivers. Petitioner had the same duties relative to the bus drivers' evaluations and testing both before and after retirement. After retirement, the Petitioner had the same pay code and cost center he had had before his retirement. Although his assigned duties after retirement did not include driver's education, Petitioner did some of the same work that he had done before his retirement and was subject to being assigned student teaching duties. Inadvertently, the Board deducted retirement contributions from Petitioner's pay and reported the contributions to the Division of Retirement. (Exhibit No. 5). This precipitated an audit of the account; and the Division of Retirement concluded, based upon the data, that Petitioner was not employed as a teacher by the local school district.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that Division of Retirement take no action to collect the benefits paid to the retiree during the period of his reemployment by the Duval County School Board between August, September, and October 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 28 day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2424 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-8. Adopted. First portion adopted; last two sentences rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. First portion adopted; last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. Adopted, except first sentence, which was rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted, except last two sentences, which were rejected as statement of issues. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Albert A. Moss, Pro Se 111 Inwood Terrace Jacksonville, FL 32207 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Rule 6A-3.0141(1)(a) Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact History of Rule 6A-0141 Prior to the promulgation of Rule 6A-3.0141, effective August 1, 1986, the Department did not have an established mandatory retirement age for public school bus drivers. It is not known how many drivers remained employed after reaching age 70. The mandatory retirement age of 70 originated from the concern expressed by transportation personnel in several local school districts about the great variance in the quality of physical examinations given to screen drivers for safety. The old rule allowed school districts to designate any licensed physician to administer the physical, and, in many cases, drivers were going to family physicians who were hesitant to fail them. The mandatory retirement age of 70 was adopted to address this concern, however, the old rule provision allowing local school districts to designate any licensed physician to conduct physical exams went unchanged. Larry McEntire, Administrator of the Department's School Transportation Management Section, worked to formulate the new rule with the five or six members of the standing rules committee of the Florida Association for Pupil Transportation (FAPT), which is comprised of personnel from the local school districts. The rule change instituted comprehensive classroom and on-the-road driver training requirements. The anew age restriction was not controversial; in fact the official published justification for the rule mentioned only the new training requirements, not the new mandatory retirement age. The particular age of 70 was arrived at through information provided by other states, ten of which had a mandatory retirement age of 70, consistent with the age-70 limitation on coverage under the federal ADEA at the time. No Florida school bus accident data, which was then viewed as unreliable, was used in choosing 70 as the age for mandatory retirement. No Florida statute suggested that age in general, or age 70 in particular, be used as a criterion in establishing qualifications for Florida school bus drivers. With regard to training and increased frequency of physical examinations at age 65 and over, the rule is patterned after the safety standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, the mandatory retirement age of 70 is in direct conflict with the NHTSA standards in effect then and now, which recommend no mandatory retirement age. The Department received a survey of state directors of pupil transportation on September 3, 1985, which was issued August 29, 1985, by the National School Transportation Association, indicating that at least 30 states had no age limit at that time for employment as a school bus driver. Although Mr. McEntire had previously seen the 1969 study by Promisel in his master's program in transportation and safety at Florida State University, neither that study nor any other study or data analysis was presented to or considered by the FAPT rules committee or others in the Department. Mr. McEntire is not aware of any study, data, or analysis considered during rulemaking which contained a recommendation that age 70 be adopted as a mandatory retirement age for school bus drivers. Mr. McEntire is unaware of whether the School Health Advisory Committee of the Florida Medical Association (FMA), which has a longstanding relationship with the Department, has ever recommended adoption of a mandatory retirement age of 70 as a means of ensuring that school bus drivers have the necessary qualifications to drive safely. Mr. McEntire and the FAPT rules committee did see a two-page document from Iowa entitled "In re Sievert Van Dyke" which reported, among other things, that "school bus drivers under 30 years and over 65 have a disproportionately large number of accidents," that "30, 40, 50 percent of the variability can be predicted on the basis of age," and that "sudden incapacity due to medical defects becomes significantly more frequent in any group reaching age 60." In Rule 6A-3.0141 several statutes are cited as specific authority for the rule and certain other statutes are cited as the specific laws implemented. None of the provisions of law mentioned in the rule requires a mandatory 70 year retirement age for public school bus drivers. The Student Transportation Coordinator for the Florida Highway Patrol, which has regulatory jurisdiction over approximately 4,000 private school bus drivers in Florida, was aware when the Department of Education instituted a mandatory retirement age of 70. The jurisdiction and mission of the Florida Highway Patrol in this regard directly parallels the mission of the Department of Education concerning public school bus drivers. While the Florida Highway Patrol requires drivers age 65 and over to have a physical examination semiannually rather than annually, as does the Department of Education, there is no age limitation for driver certification, there has never been one, and no change is planned in this policy. Age and Accident Risk Patricia J. Waller, Ph.D., is the Associate Director for Driver Studies at the University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center, Director of the University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center, and research professor at the University of North Carolina Center for Policy and Health. She is an expert in the area of driver licensing and crash safety. Dr. Patricia Waller has studied the relationship between age and accident rate. The results of Dr. Waller's research as it relates to age and crash risk are that when number of miles driven is considered, there is an increase in crash risk. Dr. Patricia Waller was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences to write a paper, "Renewal Licensure of the Elderly Driver," to be included in a comprehensive study that was done on transportation in an aging society. The publication in which Dr. Waller's paper appears officially came out in October 11, 1988. Dr. Patricia Waller's paper, "Renewal Licensure of the Elderly Driver", was done after a review of all the literature that was available on the topic of licensure and re-licensure of older drivers. The literature available included studies related to age and accident rate. Studies have shown that drivers over 65 years of age as a group behave very responsibly in driving situations. Older drivers tend to restrict their own driving to the best time and locations. For example, because of marked vision changes that occur with increasing age, older drivers reduce their nighttime driving; also, older drivers also tend to reduce their driving in cases of inclement weather or during heavy traffic times. Despite the fact that older drivers restrict their own driving so that it is less demanding, there is still an increase in crash risk with increasing age. The crash rate increases for people in their middle to late fifties, particularly when the number of miles driven in considered. However, the crash risk increases even more for individuals in their early to late sixties. With respect to drivers in their sixties and seventies, age is associated with an increasingly accelerated risk of crash. There is also an increase in crash risk per mile with increasing age. It is Dr. P. Waller's opinion that the Department should set a mandatory retirement age for school bus drivers because the crash data on licensed drivers indicates increasing involvement after age 65. It is also Dr. P. Waller's opinion that it is in everybody's best interest that older people as a group be allowed to meet personal transportation needs by retaining their driver's license for as long as possible. She feels there are tradeoffs that allow us to say we are willing to accept the highway safety risk in order to enable this person to continue to function independently. Dr. P. Waller does not believe that the state of the art permits adequate testing to determine the ability to safely drive; however, she is not a medical doctor fully versed in medical testing. For her proposition that older school bus drivers should have the same crash risk as older drivers generally, Dr. P. Waller relied on the Promisel data. The Promisel data, set forth in a 1969 report from Dunlap and Associates on school bus safety and operator age in relation to school bus accidents, shows that the number of crashes increases very dramatically with age, particularly when the number of miles driven is considered. The Promisel study found no correlation between age and accident severity, recommended against the establishment of school bus driver age limits, specifically disclaimed any causal relationship between age and accidents, and made no analysis of accident risk associated with age 65 or over. The skewed age population in the Promisel study and the "generational cohort effect" (simply stated, the older a study of drivers, the less validity it may have for current drivers) render any accident risk projections from that study to today's 70-and-over Florida school bus drivers unreliable. Finally, it is Dr. P. Waller's opinion that age 70 is an arbitrary number and that any set age is arbitrary, however, she is aware of no alterative to using age as the cutoff standard in order to maximize safety. Dr. Julian Waller is a medical doctor and also has a Master of Public Health Degree in Epidemiology. For the past 20 years, he has been employed at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. Since 1978, Dr. J. Waller has been a professor of medicine in the geriatric unit. Dr. J. Waller is an expert in the areas of human physiology as it relates to driving and medical impairment to driving; also, Dr. J. Waller is an expert in the area of statistics. Dr. J. Waller has not examined a patient since 1961. He is not certified in the sub- specialty of geriatric medicine and he is not familiar with the term heteroschistosity. He has not personally studied bus drivers. According to Dr. J. Waller, there are four basic driving tasks, all of which involve some type of commercial driving, that put excessive stress on drivers. The specific categories are: driving a bus, driving a large truck, driving an ambulance, and driving a police or fire vehicle. In order to drive a vehicle of any type, four types of capabilities are needed: (1) the person must be alert; (2) the person must be able to identify things in the environment that potentially represent a threat; (3) the person must be able to make timely and appropriate decisions; and (4) the person must be capable of carrying out the decision in a timely and appropriate manner. Normal changes occur as an individual ages that may affect his ability to perform the tasks required in a driving situation. Vision normally deteriorates with increasing age. There may be a narrowing of visual fields, a decrease in ability to adapt to dark situations, and problems associated with glare. An area of concern that may affect older individuals is contrast sensitivity. An individual with problems in this area may have absolutely normal static visual acuity. That is, he can read a typical Snellan chart very easily, but cannot read signs or other things in the environmental which are not perfect contrast of black and white. A person affected by contrast sensitivity may not be aware of many things in their environment, such as traffic signs and street signs unless they are black and white. Complex reaction time is an important factor to consider for a person in a driving situation who is required to make decisions. Older people often do not do well in complex situations where reaction time is critical. A problem among older individuals is the beginning of alteration of consciousness for very brief periods of which they are not totally aware. A physical examination or a mental examination evaluates the performance of the individual at that particular time only. An individual's performance may vary from day to day or moment to moment. During the early stages, Alzheimer's disease may be difficult to identify. However, it is during this time that individuals are most likely to be driving. The symptoms which the disease manifests, though not apparent during a physical examination, may affect an individual's driving. Everyone has a variability in their performance. However, because an older person's spare capacity has been eroded, they have less spare capacity to respond to the demands of driving situations. As a result, what may be even a relatively normal variation may put the older person below the minimum that is required to deal with increased demand required to meet emergencies and more demanding driving situations. Further, according to Dr. J. Waller, the physiological changes that affect a person's vision, stamina, and ability to deal with time-bound decision making and response time so as to effect crash rate begins at about age 55. By age 65, the increased crash risk of all drivers is significant enough to cause concern about people this age performing a special driving task such as driving a school bus. Dr. J. Waller believes that health-related criteria used in a physical examination lack the precise, predictable cutoff points to distinguish between those older drivers who should be permitted to drive and those who should not be permitted to drive. In areas where special licensing procedures are used to license older drivers, there is still the same increased crash risk for older drivers. It is Dr. J. Waller's opinion that as people grow older they have more crashes per unit of miles driven and turn out to be responsible for those crashes more frequently. It is Dr. J. Waller's opinion that it is reasonable for the Department to set an age limit for school bus drivers and that such an age should not be much past the age of about 65. He bases this opinion on his experience in working with departments of motor vehicles through the years. It is also Dr. J. Waller's opinion that the problem of physical impairment and driving and crash risk is too inexact to permit appropriate identifying criteria for those drivers who should not be permitted to drive. Dr. J. Waller served on a committee of the American Medical Association that attempted to put together an appropriate set of identifying criteria and the doctors were unable to agree. According to Dr. Waller, this lack of agreement reflects basically a lack of progress in the predictive capabilities of physical examination that has existed since 1927. Dr. J. Waller feels that the Folstein mini-mental examination cannot identify early Alzheimer's disease. It is Dr. J. Waller's further opinion that physical examinations do not reveal subtle degradation and reduced capacity in individuals. Dr. J. Waller believes that subtle degradation changes cannot be measured, but have individual components which may be testable under certain circumstances. However, the way they all relate to each other has never been tested. It is his opinion that the way we know that they exist, since they cannot be tested, is because we see what is the end result. Dr. J. Waller presented a bar graph, marked as Respondent's Exhibit K, which he relied on for his opinion that the relationship between age and accident risk is approaching an exponential relationship. That graph and the opinion based on it are unreliable. The graph is not statistically accurate, is visually deceptive as drawn, and is an unsubstantiated data analysis. Marc G. Gertz, Ph.D., is a professor at Florida State University and president of Research Network, an independent data analysis, survey, research methodology and political polling firm. As part of his duties at F.S.U., Dr. Gertz teaches many of the graduate courses in research methodology and statistics as well as having been chairman of and serving on the Ph.D. Methods Comprehensive Examination Committee for the previous eleven years. Dr. Gertz was employed by FEA/United to conduct an analysis of school bus drivers and accident rates in the State of Florida. In collecting data for this project, Dr. Gertz was not able to find any previous study ever done in Florida on school bus drivers and accident rates. This project entailed the collection of three sets of data. One set of data was obtained from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DMV). The second set of data was obtained from the Department of Education (DOE) and the third set of data was a complete enumeration (as opposed to a random sample) obtained from individual counties, specifically Dade, Pinellas, Okaloosa and Hendry. Dr. Gertz performed a number of statistical analyses on the data collected and compiled it into a report. Dr. Gertz pointed out that this is an original collection of data as opposed to a summary of data from the agencies in question that have control of the data. This data is known as primary data which is data you collect yourself as opposed to secondary data, which is someone else's data used to do your analysis. The problem with secondary data, according to Dr. Gertz, is you don't know what went into their choice of variables, their choice of case, how they operationalized, how they defined the terms or how they manipulated the data. An example of one piece of primary or "raw" data that was collected by Dr. Gertz for this study is the individual accident reports on file with the DMV. The DMV data was compared for years 1984 and 1985 for each of the different variables, for example, the number of injuries or the number of fatalities was compared with age to obtain both simple correlations and age as a curvilinear function. Based on his research, Dr. Gertz found from the DMV data that age had no statistically significant correlation with accidents of school bus drivers in Florida. Dr. Gertz explained the negative numbers of page 1 of his report as negative correlations which indicate that younger drivers are more likely to have accidents, although he was not comfortable saying that the correlation was statistically significant. Dr. Gertz pointed out that in his examination of the DMV data, what is called an accident may not be what all of us would call an accident. For example, if you knock over a tree limb or if the bus mirror is damaged, this could result in an accident report being filed with the DMV. In the bottom half of page 1 of his report, age was squared to give more weight to the younger and older people to see if age was a curvilinear function of these variables, but this analysis did not change the statistical results. Dr. Gertz performed more sophisticated analyses on the data sets he collected such as regression analysis and discrimination function analysis, but could still not explain the variation in accidents with any of the variables tested to correlate age with any of those variables. The second set of data was obtained from the DOE for the years 1986 and 1987. The results of Dr. Gertz's analyses are found on page 2 of his report. This data revealed three significant relationships, although in Dr. Gertz's opinion the significance was at a very, very low level. The statistical significance found by Dr. Gertz is .05 which means that 95 times out of 100 times it would not be happening at random. These three significant relationship are (a) in 1986 younger drivers were more likely to have had prior accidents; (b) in 1987 the younger drivers were most statistically likely to have been charged in the accident; and (c) in 1986 bus drivers who did have in-service training were less likely to have had accidents. For (c) the statistical significance is .01. On page 3 of his report, age was cited as a percentage for the years 1984-1987 using both the DMV data and the DOE data. Dr. Gertz explained this data in terms of the "n" sizes. The "n" size means the sample size. The rule of thumb, according to Dr. Gertz, is that you don't analyze columns that have less than 25 cases in the sample. In the data provided, however, some sample sizes were smaller than 25 which skews the percentage. The closest comparison in this data is in the 1984 Department of Motor Vehicle Data in which a sample size of 18-24 year olds contained 24 cases. The analysis revealed that for all accidents, the percentage where the driver was not charged is 72 percent for 18- 24 year olds and 87 percent in the 65 and older group. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 4 and 5 (Gertz's report) contains the data from the third data set. This data was collected directly from the counties and contains a complete enumeration and includes all school bus drivers, those who did not have accidents as well as those who did have accidents. Based on all the data and his analyses, it was Dr. Gertz's opinion that age did not explain why accidents occurred among school bus drivers in the State of Florida. There is no statistically significant correlation between increased age of public school bus drivers and increased accident risk. In fact, the only slight correlation is between younger drivers and increased accident risk. His conclusion is that, based on the current Florida data, age is no factor in accident risk for public school bus drivers. His opinions are accepted as most creditable because they are based on current Florida data regarding school bus drivers. Individual Medical Testing Dr. Sue H. Schler is a medical doctor and holds a Master's degree in public health and biostatistics and epidemiology. Dr. Schler is an expert in the field of geriatric medicine. Dr. Schler passed the first subspeciality certification examination in geriatric medicine ever offered, making geriatric medicine officially a subspeciality of internal medicine as of 1988. Dr. Schler teaches medical students at the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Dr. Schler believes that the average physician in Florida could easily be trained to conduct a physical examination (including a neurological exam) on a school bus driver that would take about half an hour to perform which would screen out the safe from the unsafe driver of any age. Dr. Schler explained the principle of heteroschistosity. The principle of heteroschistosity means that there is an increasing variability between individuals of increasing age as for as their physical health and their functional capacity. In light of this principle, medical examinations are increasingly likely to detect medical impairments of both a pathological and a normative nature as individuals increase in age. In Dr. Schler's opinion, functional assessment is the most appropriate method of testing individuals to determine physical and mental capabilities. Functional assessment is one of the big trends in geriatric medicine and in the past few years has been proven to have predictive value for morbidity and mortality. Dr. Schler examined ESE Form No. 479, which is the application for a license to drive a school bus, and found it to be grossly inadequate to safely screen a driver of any age. Florida's physical examination for school bus drivers could be substantially improved by assuring the quality and competence of the physician and his familiarity with the particular procedures used, and by adding more "hands-on" procedures. The current examination form requires only that "vital signs" be taken and a basic "20/20" vision test be performed, and then asks the physician to answer 12 questions "yes" or "no" with a "brief explanation" for any "no" answer. The physician's certification was recently amended to include the limiting language "on that date" regarding the school bus driver's condition. Dr. Schler believes Florida's screening procedure could be made adequate for school bus drivers if certain additional tests and procedures were added to the current form. Dr. Schler specifically mentioned a better medical history, a better physical examination, including a complete neurological exam, and a mental status examination such as the Folstein Mini Mental Status Test, and additional testing of vision and hearing, including measuring static and dynamic visual acuity, night vision, response to glare, color vision, visual fields and depth perception. She also believes that a more extensive history of the use of medications and alcohol should be included. According to Dr. Schler, the more comprehensive testing would not be difficult and would not require expensive equipment. The additional equipment required for more precise vision testing could be found at most optometrist's offices in addition to the equipment normally found in a doctor's office. Further, these tests can be effectively and inexpensively accomplished through cooperative arrangements with established vision-related companies like Pearle Vision Center. Dr. Schler makes the clear distinction between the abilities of a healthy individual as opposed to a sick person of any age. An example she gave is that cardiac sudden death is estimated to occur in thirty percent of all people who have heart disease. Forty-year old men or women who have heart attacks have a thirty percent rate of sudden death, the same as with an eighty year old man or woman. Chronic heart disease can be easily diagnosed with a physical examination, according to Dr. Schler. Dr. Schler believes that vascular disease could be screened to eliminate the risk of strokes. Dr. Schler also states that a lot of vascular disease is asymptomatic for the first twenty to thirty years but can be identified with testing. In Dr. Schler's opinion the standard confidence rate, with which you predict accuracy in the kinds of physical examinations which she described, is approximately ninety-five percent, i.e., a person's capabilities can be predicted with ninety-five percent accuracy from the examinations given by Dr. Schler and her colleagues. In Dr. Schler's practice she finds that she screens out a person as unsafe to drive prior to the DMV doing so through their driver license retesting program. Dr. Schler stated that the application for a license to drive a school bus, although she feels it is inadequate to test school bus drivers, is still much more comprehensive than the driver licensing and retesting given for a regular drivers license. In Dr. Schler's opinion, the written statements by Dr. Julian Waller, M.D., stating that physical changes take place in people that are unmeasurable was the state of medicine ten or twenty years ago. Currently, in Dr. Schler's opinion, medical doctors are very good at screening out even subtle changes of illness and aging especially as related to driving ability. Dr. Schler clearly believes that in healthy older drivers, who have the benefit of experience in driving a school bus, experience has been proven to be a major benefit in terms of safety. According to Dr. Schler, age should only be used as an added safety factor if there were no other way of safely and effectively testing school bus drivers. In her opinion, however, the State of Florida can today efficiently, cheaply and accurately test these drivers annually to determine which drivers are safe and which drivers are not. Dr. Schler's testimony and opinions are taken as creditable and are accepted instead of the opinions of Dr. J. Waller. Dr. J. Waller's opinions and information are out of date and out of step with the current state of the art in geriatrics. Individual Performance Testing, Training and Evaluation Harvey Leonard Sterns, Ph.D., currently holds three titles: 1) research professor of psychology at the University of Akron, Ohio, 2) Director, Institute for Life-Span Development and the Gerontology Fellow at the University of Akron, and 3) research professor of gerontology at Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine. Dr. Sterns is an expert in the field of industrial gerontology. Dr. Sterns has conducted research on driving as it relates to aging. The research conducted was keyed to the development of a diagnostic battery of tests to determine areas in which older drivers may have difficulty and to assist them with the training program so that they may perform at higher levels. This research also included an individual training approach which was modified in subsequent years in an attempt to attain maximum efficiency. As a foundation for his research, Dr. Sterns identified three issues of observable approaches to the driving analysis which are called intrinsic predictors. These are 1) perceptual style, i.e., how people extract relevant and irrelevant information from the visual array; 2) selective attention, i.e., a measure of central processing ability that is highly predictive of incident involvement; and 3) perceptual motor reaction, i.e., dealing with simple and complex choices in complex reactions. Dr. Sterns also researched the actual driving of a school bus in Alabama. In this research he examined the job of school bus driver from a task analysis perspective and observed first hand what was actually involved in driving the school bus. Based on this experience Dr. Sterns believes that driving a school bus on a specified route is different than normal everyday driving because, for example, the school bus driver is clearly aware of problem situations coming up such as demanding intersections or curves or other areas of potential danger. Dr. Sterns points out that school bus accidents are reported any time anything happens to the bus, including a bus getting stuck in the mud, scratched, or backed into a pole or into another bus. This is described in the literature as an "accident or a crash." The majority of accidents that we know about are property damage as opposed to accidents involving injury or fatalities. Dr. Sterns stated that Dr. Julian Waller in his book Injury Events states that school bus safety is not a major safety problem because out of approximately twenty million children who are transported by school busy every year there are twenty fatalities. School bus transportation may well be the safest form of transportation there is. Dr. Sterns cites numerous authorities and studies done both in the United States and Europe which support his opinion that experience is a critical factor in the ability to safely drive a school bus. Competency and skills involved in driving a school bus could be greatly enhanced by additional supervised on-the-road training experience together with training evaluations as opposed to using the age as criterion. The job of driving a school bus involves much more than just driving. Dr. Sterns cites the Iowa 1986 data which contained eighteen fatalities and of those, three fatalities were actually on the bus. Therefore he believes that a check ride with passengers actually on the bus is an important part of the observation of the performance level of the school bus driver. According to Dr. Sterns, the addition of the intrinsic performance evaluators which have relative predictive validity, such as selective attention, perceptual style and motor reaction time, together with enhanced training and on board evaluation of school bus drivers, is far superior to determining who a good employee performer might be as opposed to the use of any arbitrary chronological age. It is Dr. Sterns' opinion that if it were necessary to be very conservative in the setting of standards for school bus drivers, one commonly used technique in industrial psychology is that of using the median of the young group. That is, taking the younger group of employees and determining their median standard of performance and using that median as the cut off score for any older person with the result that any older person performing below that median cutoff score would not be allowed to drive a school bus. In metro transit authorities (public transportation), a method used to judge performance is to have a "checker" ride the bus as a passenger or follow in a car to see whether or not the bus driver is performing appropriately. This method would be of practical use in training school bus drivers as well. Past driving record is predictive of future accident risk. In a study of commercial drivers, performance training was demonstrated, with statistical significance, to reduce accident risk by approximately 16 percent. Performance evaluation can appropriately exclude young drivers who have functional problems related to drug or alcohol use or neurological deficits. Performance training has been developed and demonstrated to be effective at improving the performance level of both older and younger adult drivers. Performance evaluation through "on board" check rides, a "follow car" procedure, or closely "monitoring" drivers can reduce accident risk, especially when such evaluation is based upon an accurate task analysis. The 1969 Promisel Study as discussed by Dr. Sterns also relates the benefit of experience even for drivers who began to drive a school bus in their sixties, because even these drivers show an improvement in their driving ability with training and experience. The study also states on page 90 that there is no evidence to show that the severity of an accident is related to driver age and further that more than half or 50-60 percent of the difference that occurs in accident rate can be predicted only by factors other than age. Performance evaluation over a period of several days, as occurs in Florida's public school bus driver licensing process, is more reliable in determining driver capability than the single-incidence licensing which is typical of the private, noncommercial licensing process.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Pasco County ("Respondent") is an "employer" for purposes of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 ("Act"). At all times material to this case, the Respondent has had a nondiscrimination policy and a policy prohibiting sexual harassment in effect. The policies are provided to all employees, including the Petitioner, upon hiring, and are posted throughout the workplace. Denise E. Hoedt ("Petitioner") at all times material to this case was a bus driver employed by the Respondent. As of the date of the hearing, the Petitioner was on worker's compensation leave. There is no evidence that the worker's compensation leave is related to the allegations at issue in this case. When the Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent she was assigned to a regular bus route and was stationed in the "Northwest Garage" unit of the Respondent's transportation system. After having been employed for a sufficient period of time, she was provided with a contractual right to choose her route. She chose to transport exceptional education (ESE) students. As an ESE driver, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Dennis. Ms. Dennis did not work in the same garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner has been involved in a continuing series of grievances against Mr. Valentine Gallas, a "Route Specialist" for the Respondent. The grievances, filed prior to the complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations at issue in this proceeding, have been directed towards her discontent with work assigned to her by Mr. Gallas. Although Mr. Gallas was not the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, as a Route Specialist located in the Northwest Garage, he had supervisory authority over the Petitioner, as did Joanne Snodgrass, another Route Specialist in the same facility. One of the prior grievances was directed towards his request that she assume responsibility for opening a large metal gate at the entrance of the bus storage compound. The complaint was resolved by an agreement that she would not be asked to open the gate. Upon being requested by a different official to drive a later route and take responsibility to close the gate, the Petitioner complied with the request. Although she did not continue to drive the later route, there is no evidence that her decision was related to the request regarding gate closure. Another grievance centered on Mr. Gallas' directive that she drive a second bus run after she had completed her initial run. Mr. Gallas apparently did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room prior to the second run. The Petitioner filed a grievance about the matter which was resolved by an agreement that, prior to being asked to take an additional route, she would be provided with a rest room break. The Petitioner asserted that because Mr. Gallas assigned her to a bus with a poor driver's seat, her back was injured. There is no credible evidence to establish that the seat caused or contributed to the claimed back injury. The Petitioner suggested that the clock in the bus driver's lounge was tampered with and resulted in her being reprimanded for tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the clock was intentionally tampered with to cause the Petitioner to be reprimanded. There is no evidence that any of the prior disputes between the Petitioner and Mr. Gallas were related to the Petitioner's gender or national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was driving a regular bus route, Mr. Gallas was responsible for her work assignments. When she began to drive an ESE route, she was no longer directly responsible to Mr. Gallas. In January 1993, the Petitioner, via a union representative, contacted school board officials and voiced her dissatisfaction with Mr. Gallas' alleged behavior. Late in January 1993, the Petitioner, accompanied by the union representative, met in an interview with the school board's personnel investigator. At the interview, the Petitioner stated that she believed she had been discriminated against on account of her gender and ethnic origin, and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Mr. Gallas. During the interview, the investigator attempted to obtain allegations of specific conduct, but other than as stated herein, the Petitioner was unable to offer such allegations. Although during the interview, the Petitioner alleged that Mr. Gallas had made derogatory comments regarding her ethnic origin and her weight, the only specific incident of which the Petitioner spoke was Mr. Gallas' alleged remark to her, "Oh, a Cuban." She offered no context for the remark. There was no specific remark regarding weight disclosed during the interview. The Petitioner also alleged that subsequent to Mr. Gallas' purchase of beverages for a group of bus drivers, he had repeatedly said she "owed him one" in a manner which the Petitioner interpreted as sexual. The remark continued until such time as the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas. Further, the Petitioner alleged that in November 1992, Mr. Gallas came into the bus drivers' lounge and handed her an offensive written statement regarding intercourse which she interpreted as a request for sex. The investigator inquired as to whether Mr. Gallas had touched the Petitioner. She replied he had not. There was no mention of any other alleged inappropriate activity by Mr. Gallas towards the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the interview, the investigator expressed her concern about the serious nature of the charges. She assured the Petitioner that there would be no retaliation for the report of the complaints. She noted that the findings of the investigation would be confidential and requested that the Petitioner refrain from discussing the allegations pending the investigation. The investigator began her inquiry the day after meeting with the Petitioner. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Gallas and with other persons who were aware of Mr. Gallas and the operation of the Northwest Garage. As to the investigator's request that the Respondent refrain from discussing the matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with this request. The matter became fodder for discussion in the workplace. A petition was initiated by several employees on Mr. Gallas' behalf. The Petitioner attempted to initiate her own petition drive without success. The matter was viewed by some coworkers as an attempt by the Petitioner to have Mr. Gallas' employment terminated. The investigator for the Respondent viewed the Petitioner's allegations with skepticism due to the "vagueness" of the specifics. The failure of the Petitioner to comply with the request to keep the matter confidential during the investigation did little to alleviate the investigator's initial concerns about the Petitioner's credibility. Despite the continuing controversy, the school board attempted to complete its investigation of the matters about which the Petitioner had complained. In an interview with the investigator, Mr. Gallas denied the charges. He stated that the remark regarding her origin occurred in the context of a discussion between the Petitioner and another driver overheard by Mr. Gallas, at which time the remark was made. He denied making any reference to her weight. Although acknowledging that he had seen the "intercourse" card in the garage, he denied having handed it to her. He denied any sexual intent in the "owe me one" remark. Other interviews were conducted with other persons who are knowledgeable about the operations of the Northwest Garage and Mr. Gallas' employment there. The investigator was unable to substantiate the allegations. Based on a review of the Petitioner's interview and allegations, Mr. Gallas' denial, and the inability to find further substantiation for the complaints, the investigator determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the complaints were credible. After the investigation and determination were completed, there was a time delay in providing notification of the determination to the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that the delay was not an attempt to deprive the Petitioner of any contractual or legal right but was due to nothing more than clerical error on the part of the personnel investigator. There is no evidence that there was any harm to the Petitioner related to the delay. In May 1993, the Petitioner filed the complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) which is at issue in this proceeding. As identified in the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner's allegations are addressed as follows: The November 1992 "intercourse" card incident-- The Petitioner asserts that in November 1992, as she was seated with two other bus drivers in the driver's lounge, Mr. Gallas entered the lounge, walked to the table where the Petitioner and her coworkers sat, and handed a card titled "intercourse" to the Petitioner. The card was an offensive attempt at humor and included a sexual invitation. Of the two coworkers at the table, only one saw the card. The Petitioner refused to permit the other coworker to see the card. All of the women testified at the hearing. Although the Respondent presented the investigator's recollection of Mr. Gallas' denial of the incident, Mr. Gallas was not called by either party to testify at the hearing. The testimony of the two drivers who were at the table when the incident occurred and who testified at the hearing substantiates the Petitioner's allegation. There is no credible evidence that prior to her January 1993 complaint about the incident, the Petitioner discussed the matter with any other person. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' behavior regarding the "intercourse" card incident, although offensive and inappropriate, caused the Petitioner difficulty in performing her job duties or any other harm or injury. Offensive touching of the Petitioner by Mr. Gallas-- The Petitioner asserts that Mr. Gallas occasionally would stand too close to her and that on one occasion, he brushed against her breasts in passing her. There is no evidence that, prior to the filing of the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner had ever complained about unwarranted or offensive touching by Mr. Gallas. Upon direct inquiry by the school board's personnel investigator, the Petitioner denied that she had been touched by Mr. Gallas. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. Mr. Gallas' sexual requests of the Petitioner-- There is no credible evidence that Mr. Gallas made any verbal sexual requests of the Petitioner. The only incident which may be viewed as a sexual invitation relates to the "intercourse" card addressed previously in this Recommended Order. The Petitioner "owed" Mr. Gallas-- The evidence establishes that at a luncheon attended by coworkers, Mr. Gallas purchased beverages for the group and made a statement to the effect that the recipients "owed him one." Mr. Gallas would occasionally repeat his "you owe me one" statement to the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the statement was made in a sexual manner or that such was intended by Mr. Gallas. Eventually, the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas, stating "now I don't owe you one." After being bought a drink, Mr. Gallas no longer made the remark. Verbal slurs about the Petitioner's national origin-- The Petitioner is of Mexican, Spanish and Cuban origin. The Petitioner asserts that on one occasion, she became embroiled in an argument with Mr. Gallas during which he remarked, "Oh, You're nothing but a Cuban." There is no other evidence to support her assertion. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Mr. Gallas made such remarks to other employees or that such conversation was typical of him. The assertion is not credible. Terms and conditions of her employment-- The Petitioner asserts that the "terms and conditions' of her employment were different from other bus drivers with responsibilities similar to hers. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Drivers transporting ESE students generally have fewer students to transport than drivers of regular routes. It is possible that an ESE driver may transport only one or two children. ESE drivers often complete their routes before drivers of regular routes. Because the Petitioner was responsible for transportation of ESE students, her route was often completed earlier than other bus drivers. ESE drivers who have completed their routes may "stay on the clock" in which case they may be asked to provide assistance in clerical tasks or to complete other bus routes. In the alternative, drivers may "punch out" and leave. Additional work is assigned to drivers by the Route Specialist in the garage from which the drivers are based. Mr. Gallas was the Route Specialist in the garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner frequently remained on the clock and was accordingly assigned additional work to do. There is no evidence that any drivers who remained "on the clock" were treated any differently that was the Petitioner. On one afternoon, the Petitioner, suffering from back pain, returned from her route and laid down in her bus. Mr. Gallas came onto the vehicle and told her that she needed to be working. He suggested that she could be made to sweep the bus compound if she did not find other duties to complete. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner, who was on the payroll at the time she was resting in her bus, informed Mr. Gallas that she was not feeling well. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' actions upon discovering the Petitioner at rest in her bus were related to her gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. There is no evidence that other drivers were permitted, while on duty, to rest in their busses. As previously addressed, on one occasion, Mr. Gallas directed the Petitioner, immediately upon her return from her normal bus run, to perform additional transportation duties. Mr. Gallas did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room before beginning her second run. Subsequent to her complaint to appropriate authorities, Mr. Gallas was directed to permit the Petitioner to use the rest room before assigning additional responsibilities to her. Although Mr. Gallas' lack of concern about the Petitioner's personal needs was inconsiderate, the evidence fails to establish that the incident was related to gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. The Petitioner also asserts that other drivers or their spouses are permitted to bring personal vehicles into the bus compound and that she was not. The evidence fails to establish that other drivers or their spouses are routinely permitted to bring personal vehicles into the compound. The Petitioner complained that during a heavy storm one day, her husband came into the compound to pick her up and was asked to take his vehicle back outside the compound. On that day, Mr. Gallas offered to walk the Petitioner with an umbrella to her car but she declined. The Respondent's inquiry into the January 1993 grievance-- The Petitioner asserts that the school board's inquiry into her January 1993 grievance was incomplete and that the determination that the grievance was unfounded was inappropriate. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's complaints, as they were communicated to the school board, were as fully investigated as was possible. The Petitioner's complaints to the Board did not include allegations related to unwarranted touching, according such allegations were not investigated. Further, the investigation was hampered by the spread of rumor and innuendo throughout the workplace regarding the Petitioner's sexual harassment allegations. Although the evidence is not entirely clear as to where responsibility lies for the generation of the rumor and internal bickering, school board personnel involved in the investigation specifically directed the Petitioner to refrain from discussing the allegations pending the board's investigation. As previously stated, she failed to comply with this request. Coworkers of the Petitioner were also involved in discussion about the pending investigation. At that point, the workplace appears to have become divided into factions and the board's investigation was compromised. The evidence establishes that the board's investigation of the Petitioner's grievance was conducted appropriately and that persons with direct knowledge related to the allegations (including Mr. Gallas who was inexplicably not called by either party to testify at the hearing) were contacted and interviewed. Although the investigation became compromised and was completed prematurely, there is no evidence that based on the information obtained by board personnel, the board's determination that the grievance was unfounded was outside the authority of the board or unsupported by the information which the board had obtained The Petitioner seeks to be "reimbursed for all the pain and suffering I have endured...." The evidence fails to establish that such an award is appropriate. The Petitioner offered no evidence related to "pain and suffering" or which would establish that such injury, if present, is related to employment conditions. The Petitioner also seeks to be reimbursed "for any and all money which was used to seek legal consultation." There is no evidence that the Petitioner, who has represented herself throughout this proceeding, has incurred any expenses related to legal consultation regarding this complaint; therefore such an award is not appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed in this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th of June, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6652 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Proposed finding of fact paragraph six continues for approximately seven pages and consists largely of recitation of conflicting testimony. The testimony has been reconciled as indicated in this Recommended Order. The proposed finding is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, immaterial and not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 8-9. Rejected, subordinate. 10-16. Rejected, unnecessary. This unnumbered proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior" by Mr. Gallas and is treated as follows: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive testimony: a. Rejected as irrelevant: c, b, e. Rejected as immaterial: d, f, g, h. This proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Mr. Valentine Gallas and Ms. Denise Hoedt" and is treated as follows: Rejected, there is no credible evidence that the offer of an umbrella was "inappropriate sexual behavior b, k. Rejected, immaterial l, m, n, o. Accepted as modified. Remainder is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence: a, g. Rejected, subordinate: d, h, i. Rejected, irrelevant: f. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner or her husband have been subjected to restrictions regarding personal cars within the bus compound which are not generally applicable to all drivers, except when specific circumstances require otherwise. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected as to Pyles' attendance at meeting, unnecessary. Rejected as to note taking by the investigator, unnecessary. 12-13. Rejected, unnecessary. 16-18. Rejected, subordinate. 23-33. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. 34. Rejected as to ulterior motives of Petitioner, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Weightman, Superintendent Pasco County School System 7227 Land O' Lakes Blvd. Land O' Lakes, Florida 34639-2805 Denise E. Hoedt 11605 U. S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Mark Graves, Esquire 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sarasota County School Board policy and the Code of Professional Conduct of Non-Instructional Support Staff employed by the Sarasota County School District and, if so, whether Respondent's employment with the Sarasota County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a political subdivision and an administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all public schools and personnel in the Sarasota County School District. Mr. Witt is the superintendent of schools for the Sarasota County School District. At all times relevant, Ms. Jones was employed with the School Board by contract as a school bus driver. In that capacity, Ms. Jones was classified as a non-professional and non-administrative contract employee of the School Board's transportation department. She agreed to accept the contractual appointment (school bus driver) to perform such duties and services as may be required to comply with all laws of the State of Florida and rules and regulations made by the School Board. The School Board's transportation department operated a bid policy for its school bus drivers. Under the School Board's bid policy, each school bus driver was afforded an opportunity to bid (make a written selection of a particular school bus route) on the school bus route for the forthcoming school year. At the start of the 2003-2004 school year, Ms. Jones bid upon and was awarded the Oak Park School (Oak Park) bus route. Oak Park was attended by elementary through high school-aged exceptional students or exceptional student education ("ESE") students, as defined under Section 4.12 of the School Board's policies manual. Ms. Jones was assigned bus number 9615. The first responsibility of the school bus driver is the safe operation of the school bus, and the second responsibility is providing discipline to those who are transported. In October of the 2003-2004 school year, Susan Snyder (Ms. Snyder) was assigned to work on school bus number 9615 as the school bus attendant. A school bus attendant's primary responsibilities are to ensure the safety of and provide care to the students that are being transported on the bus and to minimize distractions to the school bus driver caused by the students while being transported. The students who were being transported by Ms. Jones to Oak Park have behavioral issues, are physically handicapped, and/or have been unsuccessful at other schools within the Sarasota County School District. At various times during the 2003-2004 school year, between eight and 12 students between the ages 14 and 17 rode the bus driven by Ms. Jones. Four of those students were L.J., M.N., N.K., and J.M. The collective testimonies of these four witnesses established that they frequently used profanity on the bus in their daily conversations with each other and in their daily conversation, in the context of discipline, with Ms. Jones. The students would routinely yell among themselves and at Ms. Jones, and she, in return, would yell at them. When Ms. Jones told the students to do something, "sit down," "stop playing around," or "don't open the windows on the bus," the students refused to obey, and Ms. Jones would threaten the students with physical violence. Those threats would elicit like-kind responsive threats from the students. The evidence is inconclusive for the purpose of identifying specific profanity uttered by a specific student. However, the evidence is clear that an exchange of profanity occurred between Ms. Jones and the students identified in paragraph 4 hereinabove. At some unspecified time, but prior to December 9, 2003, Ms. Jones had previously and repeatedly instructed the students to leave the bus windows up while traveling. As they were traveling down Interstate 75 (I-75), N.K., ignoring Ms. Jones' previous instructions to leave the windows up, began lowering the window. Ms. Jones observed N.K.'s actions and repeated her instructions to leave the window up. She was unable to stop on the interstate, but when she reached the Fruitville, I-75 exit, Ms. Jones exited the interstate and stopped the bus. She then turned off the engine, got up from the driver's seat, and went to N.K.'s seat where she pushed N.K., and N.K. pushed her back. The shoving back and forth between Ms. Jones and N.K. ended with Ms. Jones slapping N.K. At the end of her bus run for that day, Ms. Jones reported the incident by a Student Discipline Referral Report. N.K. told his mother of the incident, and she informed Oak Park administration. After consideration of all the facts, Oak Park administration disciplined N.K. for his conduct on the bus. It is found that Ms. Jones willfully violated the School Board's policy by slapping N.K. The "Yugioh" playing cards incident The students would play a card game known as "Yugioh." The cards belonged to L.J. Ms. Jones had previously instructed the students not to play "Yugioh" on the bus because of the disturbance the game caused, and she specifically instructed L.J. not to bring his "Yugioh" cards on the bus. On December 9, 2003, L.J. and other students, with disregard of Ms. Jones' previous instruction not to play "Yugioh" on the bus, were again playing "Yugioh." Ms. Jones asked them to stop, and they ignored her. She asked L.J. to bring the cards to her, and he refused to obey her request. When she reached the stop sign at the intersection of South Briggs Avenue and Bahia Vista Street, in Sarasota County, Florida, Ms. Jones stopped the bus, turned off the engine, and approached L.J. where he was seated. An argument ensued, which was accompanied by Ms. Jones' attempt to take the cards from L.J. and his refusal to relinquish his cards. During this altercation, Ms. Jones struck L.J. about his head, shoulders, and face. She pinched his cheeks. L.J. and Ms. Jones exchanged vulgar insults back and forth. Ms. Jones told M.N., another student, to grab L.J.'s "titties" and pinch them, and he did so. It was noted that L.J. has a large body with an extraordinary fleshly chest. After the "tittie"-pinching incident, L.J. asked to be let off the bus at that location, which was not his usual bus stop, and Ms. Jones, as she returned to the driver's seat, initially refused to do so. After sitting in the driver's seat, Ms. Jones granted L.J.'s request to exit the bus at the intersection of South Briggs Avenue and Bahia Vista Street. It is found that Ms. Jones did not violate the School. Board's policy by permitting L.J. to get off the bus at a location other than his normal pick up and exit stop. Drivers are not allowed to prevent a student from getting off the bus; they can only call transportation dispatch and report the student by name and the location the student got off the bus. It is found that Ms. Jones did, however, violate the School Board's policy when she struck L.J. and when she requested and encouraged another student to inappropriately touch L.J.'s chest. When he arrived home, L.J. reported the bus incident to his parents, and they immediately registered a complaint against Ms. Jones with Oak Park administration. Two days later, December 11, 2003, L.J.'s father, L.J., Sr., filed a police report with the Sarasota County Sheriff's Department. An officer investigated the matter on December 19, 2003, by interviewing only L.J. and Ms. Snyder. Based upon those two interviews, the investigating officer recommended that the charge of battery be filed against Ms. Jones. There is no further evidence of record regarding the battery charge recommendation made by the investigating officer. The School Board's transportation dispatcher was informed of L.J.'s parents' complaint, and he radioed Ms. Jones and Ms. Snyder instructing them, upon completing the evening bus run, to report directly to his office and to give written reports of the L.J. incident. In her written report given immediately following the incident, Ms. Jones acknowledged that there was an exchange of profanity between her and the students involved, but she denied hitting L.J. or telling other students to pinch L.J.'s titties. The evidence of record reflects that Ms. Snyder did not dispute Ms. Jones' version of the incident. Ms. Snyder also executed a written incident report immediately following the incident containing her version of what occurred. According to the School Board, Ms. Snyder's initial written incident report was inexplicably lost. At the hearing, the School Board introduced an unsigned document (the School Board's Exhibit P-9) that was not sworn to by Ms. Snyder, purporting it to be a second revised report written by Ms. Snyder. This document is found to be unreliable. Later on the evening of December 9, 2003, after giving her written report that was somehow lost, Ms. Snyder called her Union representative and gave a description of what took place on the bus on December 9, 2003. A meeting was arranged with the director of transportation, Jody Dumas (Dumas). At the meeting, Ms. Snyder gave a version of the December 9, 2003, bus incident that was contrary to her earlier confirmation of Ms. Jones' December 9, 2003, written incident report. Ms. Snyder's recall of the December 9, 2003, incident alleged that Ms. Jones slapped and verbally abused and humiliated L.J. She went on to include a claim that Ms. Jones intimidated her and the students by telling everyone on the bus that they were to say nothing happened on December 9, 2003. Mr. Dumas conducted his investigation of Ms. Snyder's allegations by interviewing M.N. and J.M. on December 12, 2003. During the initial interview, M.N. confirmed Ms. Jones' version of the incident. Under the pressure of Mr. Dumas' continuous questioning, coupled with the promise that he would not be required to ride Ms. Jones' bus anytime in the future, M.N. capitulated and confirmed the "tittie"-pinching version of the incident and agreed with Ms. Snyder's "say nothing happened on December 9, 2003," addition to her version of the incident. It is found that Ms. Jones did in fact instruct another student to pinch L.J.'s titties, and the student, for reasons of his own, complied with the request while L.J. sat there humiliated. The evidence of record in support of Ms. Snyder's allegation that Ms. Jones intimidated her and all the students on the bus by telling them "say nothing happened on December 9, 2003," is unreliable and rejected by the undersigned. On December 10, 2003, Mr. Dumas suspended Ms. Jones with pay pending further investigation of the December 9, 2003, incident. Mr. Dumas, after his review of Ms. Snyder's version of what occurred and his interviews with unnamed students, met with Ms. Jones and confronted her with the "slapping and verbal abuse of [L.J.]" allegations. Ms. Jones denied slapping and verbally abusing L.J., at which time Mr. Dumas advised Ms. Jones that he would recommend her termination to the School Board. It is found that the suspension of Ms. Jones by Mr. Dumas was appropriate and in accordance with the School Board's policy. On December 19, 2003, in his memorandum to Scott Lempe (Mr. Lempe), director of human resources, Mr. Dumas set forth specific factual bases in support of his recommended termination of Ms. Jones: (1) Ms. Jones slapped L.J. at least two times in the face; (2) Ms. Jones told another student on the bus, M.N., to go over to L.J. and pinch his titties; and (3) on at least one other occasion, Ms. Jones told one student to slap another student because he was putting a window down. Mr. Lempe prepared a notice of termination on January 5, 2004, containing his detailed explanation of the grounds for the termination based upon Ms. Jones' violations of Section 5.30(2)(c) of the Sarasota County School Board policies manual, regarding corporal punishment and the Policy Manual, Code of Professional Conduct of Non-Instructional Support Staff, and Sections 1012.22 and 1012.27, Florida Statutes (2003), insubordination and misconduct in office. On February 18, 2004, the School Board terminated the employment of Ms. Jones with its transportation department as a school bus driver. The School Board proved, by a preponderance of credible evidence, that Ms. Jones violated the School Board's policy and the Code of Professional Conduct of Non-Instructional Support Staff employed by the Sarasota County School District, as alleged in the notice of termination dated February 18, 2004.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Sarasota County School Board, enter a final order terminating the contractual employment of Respondent, Nancy Jones. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Appalachia 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 19th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Bowman, George, Scheb, Toale & Robinson 2750 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Nancy Jones 1280 Highland Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 Gene Witt, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3304 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed a discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner by virtue of Petitioner's race. (In deference to Petitioner’s preference, his race will be referred-to as "Black.")
Findings Of Fact Lenore Kimmons is an adult "White" female. She was initially hired in July 2004, in Milton, Santa Rosa County, Florida, by Laidlaw Education Services (Laidlaw) as a school bus driver. At that time, Laidlaw had the contract for driving and repairing Santa Rosa County school buses. (Stipulations 13, 14, and 15.) Effective April 1, 2005, Laidlaw and Amalgamated Transit Union (Local 1395/AFL-CIO), a mechanics’/maintenance union, entered into a collective bargaining agreement. (Stipulation 8.) This collective bargaining agreement (mechanics’ union contract) continued to be in effect when Petitioner was initially hired by Laidlaw, and by the use of executed “successor clauses,” continued in effect through the period of alleged discrimination. (Stipulation 8.) In the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, the undersigned takes the “effective date” of the mechanics’ union contract to constitute its “ratification” date, as well. Petitioner is an adult “Black” male. Laidlaw initially hired him in Milton, Florida, on September 18, 2006, as a "B Mechanic.” At that time, Laidlaw still had the contract for driving and repairing Santa Rosa County school buses. (Stipulations 1, 2, 3, and 7.) Petitioner was subject to the mechanics’ union contract, beginning with his September 18, 2006, date of hire and continuing past the alleged date of discrimination in 2008. Petitioner has had extensive heavy vehicle mechanical experience since 1989. He has worked for the United States Air Force and Department of Defense in Europe, and he supervised two vehicle maintenance shops prior to being hired by Laidlaw. He holds an Associate degree in automotive technology. Upon being hired in July 2004, Ms. Kimmons had begun work as a school bus driver (Stipulation 14) and shortly thereafter began to train as a mechanic. When she began training as a mechanic, she was reclassified into a “C Mechanic” position. As a “C Mechanic,” Ms. Kimmons ceased to be subject to the bus drivers’ union’s collective bargaining agreement and became subject to the mechanics’ union contract that eventually governed Petitioner. Sometime in 2006, Ms. Kimmons began to clerk in the office, but she continued to be classified as a “C Mechanic” and continued to be subject to the mechanics’ union contract. The mechanics’ union contract makes a distinction between employees hired before its ratification on April 1, 2005, such as Ms. Kimmons, and employees hired afterwards, such as Petitioner. It does not make a distinction based upon when one became a mechanic. The mechanics’ union contract provides, in pertinent part: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT JOB DESCRIPTIONS/CLASSIFICATIONS ARTICLE 28 Section 1 only applies to current employees who are already employed prior to the ratification of this labor agreement. * * * “A” Mechanic – required to have a minimum of 2 years experience Is defined as maintenance employee(s) who hold a Florida State Certification for School Bus Inspections. Required to work with limited supervision. The employee should have good skills and who is capable of repairing bus and white fleet including brake inspections and repair. The employee is capable of assisting and instructing lower classification mechanics. Must have and maintain a Florida CDL including “S” endorsement. “B” Mechanic – required to have a minimum of 3 years experience Is defined as maintenance employee(s) who assist higher classification mechanics. Work with supervision when required. Assists with inspection including all necessary repairs. Must have and maintain a Florida CDL including “S” endorsement. “C” Mechanic – entry level employee(s) Is defined as maintenance employee(s) who shuttle, clean, fuel, and as otherwise directed by management. Also responsible for minor cosmetics around shop such as crush oil filters, sweep areas in need, empty trash, dip tanks, and assist mechanics if necessary with full supervision by other Management personnel. Must have and maintain a Florida CDL including “S” endorsement. * * * Section 5 As of the ratification of this AGREEMENT the job descriptions for all new hires will be as follows: * * * “A” Mechanic Is defined as a maintenance employee who holds a minimum of three (3) ASE School Bus Certifications to include at least a) Air Brake, b) Steering and Suspensions, c) Diesel Engines and a Florida State Certification for School Bus Inspections. The employee is required to have a minimum of 3 years of “medium/heavy duty” technician experience (“B” Mechanic level). The employee must have good skills, is capable of diagnosing and repairing school buses and white fleet including brake inspections and repair in a reasonable length of time, in a professional manner and be able to work with limited supervision. The employee is also capable of assisting and instructing lower classification mechanics. The employee must have and maintain a Florida Commercial Drivers License with an “S” Endorsement. “B” Mechanic Is defined as a maintenance employee who holds a minimum of two (2) ASE School Bus Certifications to include at least a) Air Brake[1] and b) any of the other six (6) ASE School Bus Certifications. The employee is required to have a minimum of 2 years of “medium/heavy duty technician experience. The employee must also have good working skills, be able to assist with any inspection and all repairs as well as work with supervision when required. The employee must have and maintain a Florida Commercial Drivers License with an “S” Endorsement. “C” Mechanic Is defined as a maintenance employee who is capable of shuttling, cleaning fueling and as otherwise directed by Management. The employee is responsible for minor cosmetics around the shop such as crush oil filters, sweep areas in need, empty trash, dip tanks and assist mechanics if necessary with supervision by other maintenance personnel. The employee must have and maintain a Florida Commercial Drivers License with an “S” Endorsement. (Emphasis supplied) At no time material has either Petitioner or Ms. Kimmons ever been a member of the mechanics’ union, but from its inception, the collective bargaining agreement between Laidlaw and the mechanics’ union applied to all mechanical employees, regardless of any employee’s union membership or lack of union membership. Petitioner has been outspoken in his refusal to join the mechanics’ union. Laidlaw was purchased by First Student, Inc., on October 1, 2007. (Stipulation 9.) Upon First Student, Inc.’s purchase of Laidlaw, Petitioner and Ms. Kimmons became employees of First Student, Inc. (Stipulation 10.) First Student, Inc., is the only Respondent in this cause. Upon First Student, Inc.’s purchase of Laidlaw, the mechanics’ union contract then in existence was carried over to bind First Student, Inc. At no time material has either Petitioner or Ms. Kimmons possessed an ASE School Bus Certification in Air Brake, an ASE School Bus Certification in Steering and Suspensions, or an ASE School Bus Certification in Diesel Engines. (Stipulations 4, 5, and 6.) Petitioner and Ms. Kimmons took the examination for the Florida State Certification for School Bus Inspections in February 2008. (Stipulations 11 and 12.) Petitioner could not demonstrate that Ms. Kimmons did not have the prerequisite number of years of experience or other qualifications to sit for the examination. Petitioner’s testimony, that in February 2008, and up to the date of hearing herein, he was Respondent's only “Black” mechanic in Mechanic Classes A, B, and C, was not refuted. In February 2008, Petitioner and Ms. Kimmons both passed the Florida State Certification for School Bus Inspections examination. At that time, both of them believed that successful completion of the examination would entitle them to be appointed as Class A mechanics, to a rise in pay grade, and to a $1.00/per hour raise in pay. (Stipulations 16, 17, and 18.) Lenore Kimmons requested an increase in pay and an increase in grade from “C Mechanic” to “B Mechanic” after she completed her Florida State Certification for School Bus Inspections. (Stipulation 16.) Petitioner requested an increase in pay and an increase in grade from “B Mechanic” to “A Mechanic,” after he completed his Florida State Certification for School Bus Inspections. (Stipulation 18.) In February 2008, Ron Kramer was the immediate supervisor of both Ms. Kimmons and Petitioner. He notified his superiors, up the line of command, that Ms. Kimmons and Petitioner had passed their February examination and that he, Mr. Kramer, believed that each of them was entitled to a rise in grade and to a commensurate raise in pay. (Stipulations 16, 17, and 18.) Approximately two months passed after the February 2008, examination, and Ms. Kimmons did not receive her requested rise in grade or raise in pay. Petitioner, likewise, did not receive any rise in grade or raise in pay. The union filed grievances on behalf of Petitioner and on behalf of Ms. Kimmons, resulting in an increase in pay and a rise to "B Mechanic" for Ms. Kimmons, but no raise and rise to “A Mechanic” for Petitioner. (Stipulations 17 and 20.) Pursuant to the union contract and Ms. Kimmons’ hire prior to its ratification, the raise/rise from Class C to Class B did not require any ASEs, but a raise/rise from Class B to Class A would have required Petitioner, who was hired after contract ratification, to have three specific ASEs that he did not possess. These ASEs were in Air Brake, Steering and Suspensions, and Diesel Engines. Ms. Kimmons had been hired in 2004, before the 2005, effective date of the collective bargaining contract for mechanics. Petitioner had been hired in 2006, after the 2005, effective date of the collective bargaining agreement for mechanics. Petitioner's rate of compensation was $12.99/hour, when his request for a raise in pay and rise in grade was denied. Had his grievance been successful, he would have received $1.00 more per each hour worked as an "A Mechanic." (Stipulation 19.) First Student, Inc., ceased all operations in Santa Rosa County, effective June 30, 2008. (Stipulation 21.) Petitioner has not been employed by First Student, Inc., since June 30, 2008. (Stipulation 22.) Most, if not all, of First Student, Inc.’s employees in Santa Rosa County, including Petitioner, were hired by Durham School Services in July 2008, at the same respective pay and grade at which they were employed by First Student, Inc., on June 30, 2008. (Stipulation 24.) Petitioner is currently employed by Durham School Services and has been so employed since July 1, 2008. (Stipulation 23.) Had Petitioner received his raise in pay and rise in grade in February 2008, under First Student, Inc., he would have continued to have received pay and all emoluments at that higher grade and rate after Durham School Services took over in July 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's employment with the Lee County School District for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the acting superintendent of schools for the Lee County School District. References to "Petitioner" shall include Petitioner's predecessors and the Lee County School Board. Petitioner originally hired Respondent as a school bus driver in September 1974. Respondent worked in this capacity for Petitioner for the ensuing 23 years, except for the 1988-89 school year. During the time in question, Respondent worked under an annual contract ending June 30, 1997. During the one-year period ending June 30, 1997, Petitioner entered into a contract with Child Care of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Child Care) for the use of school property, including school buses. The purpose of the contract is to establish a program under which Child Care transports and supervises schoolchildren in after-school and summertime daycare programs. Under the contract, Petitioner provides Respondent with school buses and bus drivers. The contract prohibits the operation of the buses by anyone other than drivers "assigned by [Petitioner]." The contract provides that Petitioner shall charge Child Care for the actual costs of operating the buses, the "drivers' hourly salary," and an additional mileage fee. The contract imposes on Child Care the responsibility of carrying motor vehicle liability insurance for Child Care and Petitioner. The contract requires that Child Care "observe all rules and regulations promulgated by the School Board for its operation of school buses." Petitioner's rules prohibit bus drivers from carrying firearms while on Petitioner's property. The employment contract between the parties also requires Respondent to abide by all state and local laws and rules. Petitioner assigned Respondent as one of the bus drivers under the Child Care contract for the Christmas break in December 1996. On the morning of December 30, 1996, Respondent carried a loaded .22-caliber pistol onto one of Petitioner's school buses. The pistol was in Respondent's jacket, which he placed beside the driver's seat. Respondent then drove his normal route, picking up children and transporting them to Petitioner's public school that, under the contract, Child Care was operating while school was not in session. After finishing his morning route, Respondent left the bus at the public school with the loaded pistol still inside the jacket beside the driver's seat. Late in the afternoon of the same day, Respondent reboarded the bus, allowed the schoolchildren to reenter the bus, and drove his normal route. The loaded pistol remained in the jacket on the bus throughout the afternoon route. Although not charged with the personal use of Petitioner's property, Respondent did not return the school bus after he completed his afternoon route. Instead, he transported his own children to the residence of his estranged wife where Respondent threatened the woman with the pistol. After threatening the woman, Respondent drove the school bus, while still armed with the loaded pistol, to Petitioner's bus lot, where Respondent parked the bus and was apprehended by police, who found the loaded pistol beside the driver's seat, but no longer in a jacket. Respondent knew throughout the day of December 30, 1996, that he was in possession of a loaded firearm while operating Petitioner's school bus.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment contract of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Hament Kevin J. Hubbart Kunkel Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 970 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Jack Taylor, Acting Superintendent Lee County Public Schools 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
