Findings Of Fact Davis began working with the Board on September 16, 1974, as a custodian in the maintenance department. In 1980 Davis was transferred to the Stewart Street Elementary School as a custodian. In 1988 Davis was transferred to the Carter-Parramore Middle School as a custodian. On March 23, 1992, Davis was suspended by the Superintendent with pay. On March 25, 1992, Davis was recommended for termination and was suspended without pay by the Board. The suspension and recommended termination were the result of accusations made by Tomeka Mitchell and Tiesha Parker that Davis had made sexually explicit comments to them and had inappropriately touched them. Tomeka and Tiesha both testified regarding their versions of what occurred on January 28, 1992. Two other students, Cheryl Denise Roberts and Lashea Alexander also testified. Based on the demeanor of these witnesses and on the pervasive conflicts in their versions of the events, it is determined that their testimony is not credible or worthy of belief. Tomeka testified that on January 22 or 23, 1992, she and "Sherry" were going to meet Tiesha near the gym and that Davis stopped them, put his arms around Tomeka and Tiesha and said "This is what he wanted" and opened her button. She said nothing else happened. However, she apparently reported to HRS that Davis had touched her breast and unbuttoned her blouse. HRS determined that there was no evidence to verify these allegations. [See Finding of Fact #14] Tiesha said she was going to meet Tomeka, who was already talking to Davis, and when she and Tomeka began to walk away, Davis asked where they were going, called them over to where he was standing, and told them he "wanted some." When they asked what he "wanted," she said Davis pulled their heads together, tried to open her blouse which was buttoned, and then he "did it to Tomeka and looked down her shirt." Tiesha said that Cheryl Roberts and Lashea Alexander were standing next to them and all four discussed what happened and decided to go to the office and report it. On cross-examination, Tiesha acknowledged that Tomeka's blouse was unbuttoned before Davis called them over. Cheryl testified that she saw Davis look down Tomeka's blouse and that she (not Tiesha) was with Tomeka when Davis said he "wanted some." However, when Cheryl talked to Mr. Pace, the principal, on January 28, 1992, she said she had not seen anything, but was reporting what she had been told by Tomeka and Tiesha. Additionally, the information given by Cheryl at the time of the incident, the testimony she gave in her deposition on May 14, 1992, and her testimony at the hearing were inconsistent. Finally, Cheryl never mentioned that Davis had allegedly tried to look into Tiesha's blouse. Lashea's testimony was also contrary to that of Tomeka and Tiesha. According to Lashea's version, Tomeka and Tiesha had told her that Tomeka was afraid to go to class because Davis might say something to her, so Tiesha walked Tomeka part way to class. Lashea was near the gym with Cheryl and she saw Davis try to look into Tomeka's blouse. Lashea and Cheryl discussed what they had seen and Tomeka and Tiesha came back to the gym. Lashea told Tomeka that Davis had tried to look into her blouse and Tomeka said "Yeah, he tried to, but I didn't let him." Lashea denied that Davis tried to look in Tiesha's blouse. However, Mr. Pace recorded that on January 28, 1992, Lashea had not seen anything and had only told him what she was told by Tomeka and Tiesha. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the demeanor of these girls and from the differences in their stories is that no sexually explicit statements were made by Davis and that he did not he touch them in an inappropriate manner. The version of the incident given by Davis is credible and worthy of belief. On January 28, 1992, Davis saw Tomeka and Tiesha in the open corridor near the gym after the final bell for sixth period had rung. They were heading away from the gym. Davis asked them what class they were supposed to be in, and by their responses he thought they were supposed to be in gym. Tomeka's blouse was open and the top few buttons were undone. Davis told her to button her shirt up and he said he was sure that her parents wouldn't want her going around campus "looking like a 10 whore." Davis then told them they should be in class and he put his hand on the upper arm of each girl to guide them in the direction of the class. When it appeared they were going in the correct direction, Davis left them. Davis is a credible witness and his statements at all times between January 28, 1992, and the hearing have been consistent and forthright. According to Mr. Pace, the principal, and Lt. Morris, the school resource officer, Davis is a man of his word who is known to be honest and trustworthy. Further, Davis' reputation in the community is one of honesty and truthfulness. John D. Mathers, a Child Protective Investigator for HRS, sent a letter to Bryant dated March 18, 1992, and therein stated "The victim's statements of language addressed them by Dr. Davis [sic] meets departmental guidelines to verify the allegation of sexual exploitation, i.e. indecent solicitation of a child or explicit verbal enticement, and closing of report with classification of proposed confirmed." While this sentence is so poorly written as to render it unintelligible, Bryant interpreted it as saying that HRS had found that Davis had made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments and that these allegations of sexual exploitation were verified. In fact, the letter from Mr. Mather doesn't quite say that. Additionally, Mather said in his letter that Tomeka Mitchell told him that Davis had touched her left breast and had unbuttoned her blouse, but that no other witness verified Tomeka's allegations, and that those allegations of sexual maltreatment were not classified as proposed confirmed. The letter to Davis from Bryant dated March 23, 1992, advised Davis that the reason for the suspension and recommended termination was Davis' violation of Gadsden County Board Rule 5.112 which provides in pertinent part: Any member of the non-instructional staff may be dismissed by the School Board during his term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, giving good and sufficient reason therefor. Good and sufficient reason shall include but not be limited to: * * * (h) Violation of law, State Board of Education Rules, or School Board Rules. Upon investigation, it has been determined that on January 22, 1992 and January 28, 1992, you made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments to several female students at Carter- Parramore Middle School. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has also completed its investigation and has advised me that based on its investigation and interviews with the victims, their statements regarding your comments verify the allegations of sexual exploitation. Such behavior is violative of Gadsden County School Board rules. This determination by Bryant was based on the "information" he was given in the "final report" prepared by Pace and on the HRS letter. Bryant was unable to articulate the bases for his determination, but that is not surprising when the origin and nature of the "information" he considered is examined. The three men who gathered the information were Cecil Morris, the school resource officer employed by the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office; Rocky Pace, the principal at Carter-Parramore; and James W. Brown, Jr., the assistant superintendent for administrative services. According to Bryant, he was given a "final report" from Pace in a letter dated February 7, 1992, (Exhibit 4) with attachments: Pace's letter to Brown dated January 28, 1992, (Exhibit 5); a case report filed by Lt. Morris (Exhibits 9a and 9b); and a letter of reprimand to Davis from Pace (Exhibit 3). In that letter Pace advised that he had a tape of the interviews of Tomeka, Tiesha, a girl named Aquiana Delapierre, and Davis, however, Pace did not give Bryant the tape until sometime in March, 1992, when Bryant asked for it. Bryant never listened to the tape, but instead read written statements from the girls. No one was able to establish where these written statements came from or how they came to be in Bryant's possession. They first appeared in Lt. Morris' case file when he opened it to prepare for a deposition on July 2, 1992. He doesn't know where they came from or who took them. Pace knew nothing about the statements and did not give them to Bryant. Brown also had no knowledge of the statements. Ironically, there was no written statement from Davis. Bryant says he made his determination based on these written statements which he assumed contained the same information as the tape which he never heard. Bryant did not identify any information which he reviewed that set forth Davis' version of the event. The case report prepared by Lt. Morris contained a brief summary of the accusations made by Tomeka and Tiesha, but Morris apparently never even talked to Davis. In fact, from the testimony of Pace, Morris, and Brown, it cannot even be determined whether any investigation was ever done. Morris talked to Tomeka and Tiesha briefly and then took them to Pace. Pace taped statements from Tomeka and Tiesha and Davis. Morris was in and out of the room during the taping of statements from Tomeka and Tiesha, but he did not hear much of what they said. Brown then came to the school and again talked briefly to Cheryl Roberts because he knew her parents and to some other girls, but he doesn't remember their names. Morris had no investigatory responsibilities in the matter. Pace did no further investigation after he took the taped statements because Brown came to the school and Pace was informed that Bryant had put Brown in charge of the investigation. Brown says he was not in charge of the investigation, but had told Pace to do a thorough investigation and then report his findings to Bryant. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that none of these men did any investigation beyond the interviews conducted on January 28 and 29, 1992. The letter from Pace to Bryant (Exhibit 4), which Bryant calls the "final report," clearly states that Pace thought the investigation was still on going and that action beyond the letter of reprimand (Exhibit 3) may have been warranted at a later date. However the only continuing action involved that of HRS in its abuse investigation, which resulted in a letter which advised that no touching or unbuttoning had occurred. Bryant's accusations against Davis were limited to allegations of explicit and inappropriate sexual comments. These reasons given for the suspension and recommended termination must have been based almost entirely on the letter from Mather at HRS since there was so little competent and probative information considered by Bryant. However, the statements made by Mather in his letter are insufficient to show whether HRS actually took any action against Davis in this matter and no evidence was presented to show whether any such action was taken. Since Bryant never reviewed any statement by Davis regarding his version of the events, Bryant never knew that Davis' words and actions in trying to get the girls to go to their class and to get Tomeka to straighten and button her clothes were routine for Davis. From the time Davis was assigned to Carter-Parramore in 1988 until March 18, 1991, a Mr. White had been the principal at that school. White had asked Davis to assist in keeping order at the school and had authorized Davis to open the gym on cold mornings at around 7:15 a.m. so that early-arriving students could be warm. At times, Davis was the only Board employee on campus and he was to remain in the gym to keep order until other adults arrived. White also used Davis' assistance to break up fights and control campus access by non- students during the school day. With White's knowledge and consent, Davis also directed students to go to class when they were not where they were supposed to be, to straighten up their attire or behavior, and to stay in school and not skip class. Mr. White died unexpectedly in March, 1991, and Pace became the acting principal and ultimately the principal. Pace knew of all these activities by Davis and never told him to restrict himself to duties directly related to his job as head custodian. Pace acknowledges that Davis was friendly and interacted with students and pitched in wherever he was needed. It was entirely consistent with these acknowledged activities of Davis that he would stop two students who were outside after the sixth period bell had rung, would direct them to go to class and would insist that one of them straighten her clothing which was unbuttoned and allowed her breasts to be seen. Finally, the alleged matter involving Aquiana Delapierre must be examined. Aquiana made an allegation against Davis that he said he "wanted some" from her also. Aquiana was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but she failed to appear. All other documentation of these allegations constitutes hearsay and absent her live testimony, that hearsay cannot form the basis for any findings of fact. Exhibit 9a is the report prepared by Lt. Morris regarding Aquiana's allegations. It is insufficient to support a finding about the alleged incident. Davis was employed pursuant to an annual contract. His contract had been renewed yearly for the preceding eighteen years. Davis had always received satisfactory job ratings. Because of the recommended termination and Davis' suspension in March, 1992, no recommendation or action was taken to renew his annual contract for the 1992-93 school year. Davis' contract for the 1991-92 school year expired on June 30, 1992. Davis has no statutory entitlement to renewal of his contract, but no evidence was presented to show any reason why his annual contract would not have been renewed but for this case. Further, Davis' position has not been filled by another employee. The clear fact is that Davis' contract would have been renewed but for these wrongful allegations and this action which followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a Final Order and therein: Award to Charlie C. Davis back pay for the period from March 25, 1992, until the expiration of his annual contract. Reinstate Charlie C. Davis to his position as head custodian at Carter- Parramore Middle School and renew his annual contract for that position for the entire 1992-1993 school year. Award to Davis back pay for the period covered by the annual contract for 1992-1993 during which has not been working or being paid. Deny the request for Davis' attorney's fees and costs necessitated for his defense against the suspension and termination on March 25, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 23rd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2375 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Gadsden County School Board 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29-35, and 38-41 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 2. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 26 and 37 are irrelevant to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Charlie C. Davis Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5. Proposed findings of fact 6-18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Bryant, Superintendent Gadsden County School Board Post Office Box 818 Quincy, FL 32351 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Deborah J. Stephens Attorney at Law The Ausley Law Firm 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Dobson & Kundin, P.A. Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Miami-Dade County School Board's Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board, Respondent, and his Supervisors The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including Gertrude K. Edlelman/Sabal Palm Elementary School (Sabal Palm), Miami Norland Senior High School (Norland), and North Miami Senior High School (North Miami). The principals of these schools have ultimate supervisory authority over all School Board employees assigned to their schools, including custodial employees. Raul Gutierrez is now, and has been for the past three years, the principal of Sabal Palm. Mr. Gutierrez succeeded Gertrude Edelman, after whom the school is now named. Mr. Gutierrez had served as an assistant principal at the school under Ms. Edelman for five years before he became the school's principal. Selma McKeller is now, and has been for the past 11 years, the head custodian at Sabal Palm, having supervisory authority over all other members of the school's custodial staff. Willie Turner is now, and has been for the past four years, the principal of Norland. Gladys Hudson was an assistant principal at Norland during the 2002-2003 school year. Among her responsibilities was to oversee the school's entire custodial staff, including the head and lead custodians. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March of 1989. Respondent was initially hired as a custodian and assigned to Sabal Palm. In August 1998, while still assigned to Sabal Palm, Respondent was promoted to his present position, lead custodian, which is a supervisory position. Respondent remained at Sabal Palm until August 2002, when he was placed on "alternate assignment" at Norland, where he worked under the direct supervision of the school's lead custodian, Leaford Harris. In December 2002, Respondent was placed on "alternate assignment" at North Miami. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II of the AFSCME Contract is the contract's "[r]ecognition" article. Section 3 of Article II provides as follows: The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, Local 1184, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; and (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the MDCPS and the lines of administrative authority of MDCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; I. Contract out for goods or services; and J. Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Definitions are set forth in Article V of the AFSCME Contract. They include the following: * * * Section 17. Working Hours-- Those specified hours when employees are expected to be present and performing assigned duties. Section 18. Workday-- The total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties. * * * Section 27. Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. Section 4A of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[n]ewly-[h]ired [e]mployees." It provides as follows: Newly-hired employees in the bargaining unit (except temporary, hourly, or substitute employees) shall be considered probationary for the first three calendar months; thereafter, they shall be considered annual employees, subject to annual reappointment. During such probationary period, employees may be terminated without recourse under this Contract. If, at any time during the probationary period, the newly-hired employee's performance is considered unacceptable, the probationary employee shall be terminated. Section 13 of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract discusses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance. AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program. The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations. The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Employee Rights: Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program. An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[d]isciplinary [a]ction." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process," and it provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee[']s record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. A Conference-for-the-Record shall be held when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated investigation to determine if formal disciplinary action should be taken (i.e., letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal). A Conference-for- the-Record in and of itself shall not be considered disciplinary. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. The employee shall have the right to Union representation in Conferences-for-the- Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. A maximum of two Union representatives may be present at a Conference-for-the Record. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notice of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade," and it provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer or through the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action and to select the method of appeal. If the employee when appealing the Board action, does not select the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract the Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled, "Cause for Suspension," and it provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI describes the "[t]ypes of [s]eparation." It provides in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any of four [sic] distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- . . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- . . . . AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non- reappointment. Such employee may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . . Section 6 of Article XI addresses the subject of "[p]ersonnel [f]iles," and it provides as follows: A. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 231.291 Personnel Files - Public school system employee personnel files shall be maintained according to the following provisions: Except for materials pertaining to work performance or such other matters that may be cause for discipline, suspension, or dismissal under laws of this state, no derogatory materials relating to an employee's conduct, service, character, or personality shall be placed in the personnel file of such employee. Materials relating to work performance, discipline, suspension, or dismissal must be reduced to writing and signed by a person competent to know the facts or make the judgment. No such materials may be placed in a personnel file, unless they have been reduced to writing within 45 calendar days, exclusive of the summer vacation period, of the school system's administration becoming aware of the facts reflected in the materials. The employee shall have the right to answer any material filed hereafter in his/her personnel file and the answer, if submitted, shall be attached to the file copy. No anonymous letter or material shall be placed in an employee's personnel file. The validity of items of a derogatory nature placed in an employee's personnel file shall be subject to the grievance procedure. There shall be no statements placed in an employee's personnel file unless the employee has been given a copy. Upon request, the employee, or any person designated in writing by the employee, shall be permitted to examine the personnel file. The employee shall be permitted, conveniently, to reproduce any materials in the file, at a cost no greater tha[n] five cents per page. Such request should be made to the custodian of a personnel file, who shall permit examination of the records at reasonable times, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision of the custodian of the record. The custodian of the record shall maintain a record in the file of those persons reviewing the file each time it is reviewed. "Personnel [i]nvestigations" are the subject of Section 7 of Article XI, which provides as follows: The Board shall take steps to ascertain the identity of the complainant, prior to authorization of an investigation. No investigation of an allegation against an employee shall be made on the basis of an anonymous complaint. In the event of allegations and/or complaints being made against any employee, an investigation which may result in information being placed in the employee's personnel file shall not be concluded by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Police (MDCPSP) or any person prior to the time that the employee receives identification of the complainant and the nature of the complaint. In all Board investigations which may lead to suspension or dismissal of an employee, only the Superintendent or his/her designee may authorize such an investigation. When a formal investigation has been authorized, all personnel involved will be advised by the MDCPSP investigator of their legal rights, and the procedures available to them for representation. Information that is not substantiated will not be used for disciplinary action against the employee. In all Board investigations resulting in discipline, the employee shall be provided with a copy of the report. With the permission of the employee, the Union shall also receive a copy. When investigatory reports are provided, said reports shall be transmitted within a timeframe consistent and harmonious with basic due process. In all cases in which the preliminary investigation is concluded, with the finding that there is no probable cause to proceed further and no disciplinary action taken or charges filed, a statement to that effect signed by the responsible investigation official shall be attached to the complaint and the complaint and all such materials shall be open, thereafter, to inspection. Where allegations have not been proven against an employee, no reprisal or punitive action shall be taken against an employee. Pertinent School Board Rules As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08 is a "[g]eneral [p]ersonnel [p]olicy [s]tatement" regarding "[v]iolence in the [w]orkplace." It provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but it is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public Schools employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. September 1989 Investigation In September of 1989, Respondent was the subject of an investigation conducted by what was then referred to as the School Board's Special Investigative Unit (S.I.U.). The investigation culminated in an investigative report being issued on September 27, 1989 (in S.I.U. Case No. T1684). The report was written by Detective Sergeant Miriam McNeil-Green and read as follows: Allegation: On Wednesday, 09-13-89, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at Northwest 191 Street and 37 Avenue at 11:50 p.m. for driving with a suspended license, citation #55136-IR. The above allegation was reported to central S.I.U. office on September 14, 1989, by Sergeant Rudolf, Metro-Dade Police shift commander. Mr. Henry Hortsmann, Director, Office of Professional Standards, authorized a records check on September 14, 1989. I [Detective Sergeant McNeil-Green] responded to Metro-Dade headquarters building on September 20, 1989, in reference to the above offense. However, the traffic offense was not on file. I went to the Metro-Dade justice building, traffic division and was given a copy of the printout for the arrest of Steven Spencer Newbold. A copy of the printout is attached to this report. The arraignment date will be set. While at Metro-Dade headquarters building it was discovered that Steven Newbold has a felony and misdemeanor past as follows: On 02-24-88, Steven Newbold was arrested at Northwest 22 Avenue and 90 Street, Miami, Fl. 33142, for (1) No valid drivers license; (2) Driving with license suspended; (3) Grand theft auto; (4) Possession of marijuana (11 grams). On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled guilty to possession of marijuana. Adjudication was withheld and Newbold was placed on probation for one year. On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled nolo contendere to one count of grand theft auto and was placed on one year probation. Certified copies are attached. On May 11, 1988, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at 1461 N. W. 60 Street, apt. #5, Miami, Fl. 33141 for trespassing of structure. On July 14, 1988, Newbold pled guilty and was fined $78.75. Certified copies are attached. Vault information: Steven Spencer Newbold was hired on 03-22-89 as a custodian at Sabal Palm Elementary. On his application for employment, Mr. Newbold stated he had never been arrested. Conclusion: The allegation against Steven S. Newbold is substantiated, [in that] he was arrested on September 13, 1989 for a traffic offense. He also falsified his employment application by stating he had not been arrested. On October 1, 1990, Henry Horstmann, the director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards referred to in the investigative report, authored a memorandum concerning the report for placement in Respondent's personnel file. The memorandum read as follows: SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF INVESTIGATIVE
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2004.
The Issue Did the Hendry County School Board (Board) have just cause to terminate Respondent from her employment as a paraprofessional teacher's aide?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the HCSD as a paraprofessional teacher's aide at LMS. The employment relationship between the Board and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 8, Section 8.013, Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides that "when an employee has completed three (3) years of the past five (5) with satisfactory service with the Hendry County School Board . . . and has been appointed for a subsequent year, he [sic] will be eligible for continued employment status, which status will continue year to year unless the Board terminates the employee for just cause (Emphasis furnished). Respondent was first employed with the HCSD on August 18, 1986, and worked continuously through May 25, 1999, when she was terminated. Since Respondent achieved "continued employment status," she can only be terminated for "just cause." The Board terminated Respondent for "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner" and "other sufficient cause" under School Board Policies and Procedures 218. There were no written evaluations of Respondent's performance accomplished during the first 9 years of Respondent's employment with the HCSD because the Board did not adopt its current policy until approximately 1996. However, there is no evidence that Respondent's work performance was unsatisfactory during the first 9 years of her employment with the HCSD. Respondent worked at LMS for each of those nine years of her employment with the HCSD and was routinely re-appointed for each ensuing year. The first 2 years of her employment, Respondent was assigned to work with students that were classified as "trainable mentally handicapped." Respondent had to assist these students in learning rudimentary skills such as brushing their teeth and changing their underwear. From the fall of 1988 until the spring of 1992, the equivalent of 4 school years, Respondent was assigned to the "Time Out Room." The assignment to the "Time-Out Room" was not punitive in nature, or the result of unsatisfactory work performance by Respondent. Disruptive students that caused a problem in the classroom were sent to the "Time-Out Room." The students went in the "Time-Out Room" for one period after which they usually would return to their regular class. Although Respondent was employed as a "Teacher's Aide" for exceptional education students with special needs she did not assist a teacher, but ran the "Time-Out Room" alone. After 4 years working in the "Time-Out Room," Respondent was assigned to Internal Suspension. The "Time-Out Room" was eliminated, and replaced with Internal Suspension. Internal Suspension was used as a form of discipline for students who violated school policy. Students were sent to Internal Suspension anywhere from 2 to 10 days. Internal Suspension was conducted in a double-wide trailer behind LMS. Respondent again was by herself in Internal Suspension and was not assisting a teacher. The first documentation of any performance deficiency by Respondent consists of a Procedure for Improvement form and a Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form, both dated January 22, 1996. The forms were prepared by James C. Allen, Principal of the LMS. The Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent achieved a "satisfactory" designation for 6 areas and a "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The deficiencies specified in the Procedures for Improvement form are: "Harshness in speaking with staff and students, assisting students with academic work, unacceptable activities in classroom, needlepoint, police scanner." The Procedures for Improvement form provided that Respondent had the "95/96 school year" to improve, and that Mr. Allen would "Recommend dismissal" if the deficiencies were not improved. Respondent successfully improved her performance. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote a letter to Respondent's union representative, with a copy to Respondent, stating that "I too am optimistic that improvement has occurred." On April 1, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote directly to Respondent expressing concern about "complaints/concerns" received about her conduct on a Beta Club trip to Washington, D.C., but stating, in pertinent part: These concerns cannot be overlooked, however, since we initiated procedures for improvement January 22, 1996, which dealt specifically with harshness in speaking with students/staff. Improvement has been noted. It must also be pointed out that Ms Dankanich (Beta Club sponsor) and some staff members felt that you did a good job in controlling your students and watching out for their safety and welfare. (Emphasis furnished). The March and April 1996 letters from Mr. Allen were included in Respondent's personnel file. Also included in the personnel file were letters from the Beta Club sponsor for the Washington, D.C. trip and a chaperone. These letters stated that Respondent spoke to students and adults and conducted herself in an appropriate manner throughout the trip. Respondent's annual "Overall Evaluation" for the 1995-1996 school year was "Satisfactory." Mr. Allen checked the box entitled "Reappoint based on employee's willingness to improve job dimensions not satisfactory." Respondent attained a "Satisfactory" score on 6 out of eight areas listed for job dimension with "Quality of Work" and Work Attitude" checked-off for "Needs Improvement." Respondent was reappointed and returned to LMS for the 1996-1997 school year. Respondent was assigned to assist with the "trainable mentally handicapped" students after having been on her own in the "Time-Out Room" and Internal Suspension for 8 years and working with Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students. This assignment required an adjustment for Respondent. On February 11, 1997, Allen presented Respondent with another Procedures for Improvement form and Special Non- Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. As in the preceding year, the Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The Procedures for Improvement form identified deficiencies as "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner, harshness in speaking with students/staff; unacceptable activities in classroom," and afforded Respondent the 96\97 school year to improve or be recommended for dismissal. Respondent wrote on both forms that she did not agree with them. In April 1997, 12 professional colleagues of Respondent wrote letters of support. These letters were included in Respondent's personnel file. The letters vouch for Respondent's professionalism and many stated that Respondent never was observed to engage in improper conduct or exhibit inappropriate speech or tone of voice. Throughout the second semester of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent worked 2 class periods as a teacher's aide for Erin Berg-Hayes. Ms. Berg-Hayes was a sixth grade ESE teacher. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's job performance during the 1996-1997 school year was satisfactory. Respondent did not receive annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year. Since Respondent was not told otherwise, Respondent assumed she had improved her performance to Mr. Allen's satisfaction. Respondent received a letter of appointment at the end of the 1996-1997 school year and was reappointed for the 1997-1998 school year. For the 1997-1998 school year, the sixth grade students at LMS were moved to the Sixth Grade Center (SGC). Jodi Bell assistant principal at LMS was assigned to administer the SGC. Mr. Allen remained as principal at the LMS which consisted of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent worked as Erin Berg-Hayes' full-time aide for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes were assigned to the SGC. Ms. Berg-Hayes characterized Respondent's job performance during the 1997-1998 school year as "good." When Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's annual evaluation, Ms. Berg-Hayes advised Ms. Bell that she was "pleased" with Respondent's performance and "on the overall [Respondent's] performance was good and satisfactory." Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Bell checked off "satisfactory" in the 8 areas designated for assessment. There were no check marks in the "Needs Improvement" column. On the 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Ms. Bell checked the box for "Satisfactory" as Respondent's "Overall Evaluation," and also checked the box for "Reappoint for next year." In the section entitled "Comments by Evaluator," Ms. Bell wrote: "I have appreciated your willingness to go above what is expected and help wherever help is needed. Keep up the good work!" Respondent returned to the SGC as Ms. Berg-Hayes' Aide in the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent worked together for the fall semester after which Respondent requested to be reassigned. Respondent attributed this to a personality clash with Ms. Berg-Hayes that started in July 1998. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's performance declined in the 1998-1999 school year. Cathy Lipford, teacher's aide at SGC, who worked together with Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent for one period during the entire fall semester in the 1998-1999 school year did not observe a problem with Respondent's work performance. This teachers' aide was aware of some tension between Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes. However, this aide testified that Respondent appeared to take the initiative, and assisted students, and the aide never observed Respondent speaking inappropriately to students. Ms. Berg-Hayes did not prepare any documentation of Respondent's alleged performance deficiencies during the fall semester of the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes was not consulted about Respondent's performance by Mr. Allen, the former principal of LMS or Mr. Cooper, the current principal of LMS at the time Respondent's performance was evaluated for the 1998-1999 school year, when it was decided to recommend dismissal of Respondent for failure to perform her assigned duties or other sufficient cause. During the spring semester of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent was assigned as an aide to Dorothy Lomago, a varying exceptionalities teacher for seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent and Ms. Lomago worked together from January 1999 through May 1999. Ms. Lomago had been employed by the Board for 25 years. Prior to Respondent, Ms. Lomago only had had 2 other teaching assistants. Ms. Lomago considers compassion for children and initiative as the most important characteristics for a teacher's aide in special education. Ms. Lomago rated Respondent's performance in those areas as "ineffective." Ms. Lomago considered Respondent adequate in performing clerical tasks such as copying papers and grading papers. Ms. Lomago did not document Respondent's performance deficiencies. Ms. Lomago neither counseled nor corrected Respondent. Likewise, Ms. Lomago never brought to Respondent's attention the things she believed Respondent failed to do or did wrong. Ms. Lomago merely did what she was told to do by Mr. Cooper when he arrived at LMS in March 1999. On March 31, 1999, Respondent went to Mr. Allen's office for her 1998-1999 annual evaluation. R. Scott Cooper, assistant principal, Ms. Jodi Bell, assistant principal, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Davis, assistant principal were present in Mr. Allen's office upon Respondent's arrival. This meeting was terminated after Mr. Allen indicated there was a problem and asked Respondent if she wanted union representation. Respondent replied that she thought it would be wise. Before the meeting on March 31, 1999, Respondent was not aware that her job performance was considered deficient. Respondent had not been told of any deficiencies and had not received any counseling. In March/April 1999, Mr. Allen retired, and was replaced as principal of LMS by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper arrived at LMS some time in the last 2 weeks of March 1999. Respondent and Mr. Cooper had had no professional contact before March 1999. Mr. Cooper met with Respondent on April 16, 1999, for Respondent's 1998-1999 annual evaluation. Mr. Cooper gave Respondent 4 separate Procedures for Improvement forms and an Annual Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. This was Respondent's first notice of her specific performance deficiencies for the 1998-1999 school year. Mr. Cooper never conducted a formal observation of Respondent's job performance. Mr. Cooper based the annual evaluation predominantly on a review of the school board records, and on discussions with Mr. Allen, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Davis. The Procedures for Improvement forms specified the following deficiencies: "Work Attitude - able to successfully work with co-workers and students"; "Initiate Resourcefulness - ability to identify what needs to be done"; ""Dependability"; and "Quality of Work." The forms identified the following means of judging success in overcoming the foregoing deficiencies, respectively. "Supervisors will observe appropriate student/aide interactions in all circumstances"; "decreased necessity for teacher/supervisor to redirect Ms. Bennett's activities"; "Ms. Bennett will demonstrate the ability to effective [sic] facilitate school functions - adhere to work requirements"; and "Higher quality of work - decrease in errors." As a Statement of Assistance Offered, all of the forms provided: "Ms. Bennett may meet with Mr. Cooper weekly to obtain suggestions and assistance" Respondent was given until May 10, 1999, to improve her deficiencies. This was a period of 3 weeks or 15 school days. On Respondent's Annual Non-Instructional Personnel form, Mr. Cooper checked-off 4 out of 8 areas for "Needs Improvement" with "Satisfactory" checked for the remaining 4 areas. Mr. Allen checked "Unsatisfactory" for the "Overall Evaluation" and checked the box "Dismissal." Respondent noted her disagreement with the evaluation. On May 19, 1999, Mr. Cooper formally recommended dismissal of Respondent. Respondent received a Notice of Recommendation of Dismissal on that date. The Board approved Respondent's dismissal on May 25, 1999. During the 3 week period Respondent was given to improve her performance, neither Mr. Cooper nor any other administrator met with Respondent to advise her as to whether she was improving. There is no documentation whatsoever of Respondent's lack of improvement. During the 3 weeks Respondent was to improve her performance, she received repeated assurance from Ms. Lomago that they would be working together the following year. Ms. Lomago never advised Respondent that her performance continued to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, no one from the Board or any school administrator advised Respondent that she was not complying with the Procedures for Improvement or that her work continued to be unsatisfactory. Not hearing otherwise, Respondent considered her work to be satisfactory and did not meet with Mr. Cooper to obtain suggestions and assistance. The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to perform her assigned duties in a satisfactory manner during the 1998-1999 school year or that the Board had just cause or any other sufficient cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board reinstate the employment of Annette Bennett-Edwards and provide for back pay and benefits retroactive to May 25, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Upthegrove Superintendent Hendry County School District Post Office Box 1980 LaBelle, Florida 33935-1980 Richard G. Groff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Betruff and St. Paul, P.L. Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2989 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's conduct constitutes just cause for her dismissal from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ("Petitioner" or "School Board") is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Polk County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4, subsection (b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Rosalinda Morales (Respondent) has been employed by the School Board for nine years and, concerning the matters at issue in this hearing, was a classroom teacher at Inwood Elementary School in Winter Haven, Florida. She was employed pursuant to terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Inwood Principal Amy Heiser-Meyers (the "Principal") issued a letter of concern to Respondent on September 28, 2011, in which she reminded Respondent of the importance of timely confirming her students' attendance each day. The Principal provided written confirmation of a verbal warning to Respondent by letter dated June 7, 2012, concerning Respondent's failure to advise the school she would be absent from work. The Principal provided written confirmation by letter dated November 27, 2012, of a second verbal warning for Respondent's failure to advise the school that she would not be present and for arriving late at work on another occasion. The Principal issued a written reprimand, following a conference with Respondent, by letter dated February 13, 2013. The written reprimand was the result of Respondent having failed to follow specific instructions and not properly handling student documentation. The Principal issued Respondent a second written reprimand by letter dated February 15, 2013, following a conference resulting from Respondent having submitted attendance records indicating that a student was present in class when, in fact, the student was absent. By letter dated February 28, 2013, the Principal requested that Superintendent John Stewart suspend Respondent without pay for several incidences of ongoing misconduct. These included Respondent's use of inappropriate and disparaging student behavior techniques; Respondent being unaware that two kindergarten students had walked out of her class without permission; and Respondent's repeated use of obscenities and disparaging comments regarding staff members while present at the school. Dennis F. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, issued a letter dated March 4, 2013, giving Respondent a three-day suspension without pay as a result of this ongoing misconduct. On July 10, 2013, the Principal wrote Superintendent Kathryn LeRoy again requesting a suspension without pay for Respondent as the result of Respondent's continued, ongoing misconduct in a number of incidences set forth in that letter involving failure to follow established school protocol, absence from work, and her lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of young students. Based upon that letter, the assistant superintendent for human resources issued a letter, dated July 18, 2013, suspending Respondent without pay for five days. Respondent never filed a grievance or any formal complaint contesting the above-described disciplinary actions taken as the result of her behavior. On May 8, 2013, Respondent was teaching her kindergarten class. She had 18 students in her classroom. She was being assisted in her classroom that day by Ms. Ellistine Smith, a retired principal. Near dismissal time, at approximately 2:30 p.m., D., a student in the classroom, became disruptive. D. had behavior problems throughout the school year. D. refused to stay in his assigned area and constantly disrupted lessons. D. is known as a "runner," meaning he would run away from teachers or the campus in general. Respondent regularly had to chase D. to try to catch him. She would never be able to catch him because whenever she got close, he would again run away. On that day, D. decided not to participate in class. He removed his shoes and threw them at other students, at the ground, and at Respondent. He took off his shirt and threw it at students. Respondent directed D. to go to time out, but he refused. Respondent asked Ms. Smith to keep an eye on the class while she removed D. from the classroom. Respondent looked outside the classroom for the paraeducator who normally sits in the hallway, but she was not present at that time. Respondent decided to take D. to the fifth grade building to have him stay with another paraeducator. D. voluntarily walked with Respondent down the hallway to the fifth grade building. She was holding him by the wrist. When they arrived at the fifth grade building, D. resisted going further and tried to pull away from Respondent. She maintained a stronger grip on his wrist to prevent him from running away. Respondent then opened the door to the fifth grade building, did not see anyone, but heard the copy machine running in the copy room. Respondent began to lead D. into the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) room outside the copy room, but he let his body go limp. Respondent lifted him to carry him into the building and towards the copy room, but could not go very far due to her petite stature. She dragged him a short distance to the copy room where Venise Stinfil, a third grade teacher was working. Respondent left D. with Ms. Stinfil, stating that "[she] can't handle or deal with this at this time, because I'm being observed." Respondent dropped the student's arm and returned to her classroom. Ms. Stinfil noticed scuff marks on D.'s shirt and that the shirt was very dirty and the student distraught. Fifth grade teacher Erin Rodgers was also present at the time Respondent brought D. to Ms. Stinfil's room. She saw Respondent holding D. by his arm and dragging him a short distance into Ms. Stinfil's room. Respondent did not intend to injure D., and he did not appear to have any physical injuries as a result of being brought to Ms. Stinfil's room. Ms. Stinfil testified that her training would have led her to handle the situation with D. differently. When he went limp and laid on the floor, she would have talked with him to try and get him to stand up to move on to their destination rather than taking him by the wrist and pulling/dragging him along. If the student refused to get up, she would have called someone from administration, who was trained in handling such situations, to help talk the student into compliance or appropriately help him up and move to their destination. She had been trained to never put her hands on students. Respondent acknowledged that the procedures she used in taking D. from her classroom might not have been the preferred method in which other teachers had been trained, but it was a choice of handling such matters she had used before. Respondent received a letter from Mr. Dunn dated July 29, 2013, advising her that Superintendent LeRoy would recommend her termination from employment at the next meeting of the School Board on August 13, 2013. When Respondent requested a hearing concerning the termination, she was suspended without pay pending the outcome of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North Clearwater, Florida 33761 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Kathryn LeRoy, Superintendent Polk County School District Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a school monitor on the grounds alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed September 5, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4B of Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Petitioner employed Respondent as a school security monitor and assigned her to work at Horace Mann, which is a public school located within the school district of Miami-Dade County, and, as will be discussed below, to a temporary duty location. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. Respondent’s employment with Petitioner began on April 12, 1993. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) collective bargaining unit. On October 22, 2001, Metro-Dade Police arrested Respondent on charges of aggravated battery and violation of probation. Respondent remained incarcerated from the date of her arrest until May 15, 2002. Respondent admitted that she had engaged in a fight while she was on probation and that she had thereby violated the terms of her probation. Respondent did not report to work between October 22, 2001, and May 15, 2002. Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner dated December 3, 2001, and addressed "to whom it may concern." The letter reflects that Respondent had previously entered a plea to a charge of domestic violence for which she had been placed on probation. It also reflected that that she was in jail after violating the conditions of her probation by having engaged in a fight. Respondent's letter represented that she would be released from jail on February 4, 2002, and makes it clear that she wanted to retain her employment, if possible. Carolyn Blake was the principal of Horace Mann at the times material to this proceeding. Ms. Blake learned of Respondent’s arrest within days of its occurrence. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Blake forwarded her home telephone number to Respondent and sent Respondent a message to call her collect from jail so that she and Respondent could discuss Respondent’s employment intentions. On December 26, 2001, Respondent placed a collect call to Ms. Blake at Ms. Blake’s home. Ms. Blake accepted the collect call from Respondent. During the ensuing telephone conversation Respondent told Ms. Blake that she would be released from jail by February 4, 2002, and that she hoped to return to work. Ms. Blake told Respondent she should consider resigning from her employment with Petitioner because of the number of days she had been absent without authorized leave. On January 14, 2002, Ms. Blake attempted to communicate with Respondent through a memorandum sent to Respondent's home address. The memorandum reflected that Respondent had been absent from her worksite since October 19, 2001, and that the absences had impeded the effective operation of the worksite. The memorandum requested that Respondent select from among four options and to notify her worksite within three days of the date of the notice regarding her employment intentions. The four options were to (1) notify the worksite of the date she intended to return to work; (2) apply for leave of absence; (3) resign; or (4) retire. The January 14, 2002, memorandum, further advised Respondent that her absences would continue to be unauthorized until she communicated directly with Ms. Blake as to her employment intentions. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. On March 11, 2002, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record (CFR) scheduled for March 28, 2002, at the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to address, among other things, Respondent’s arrest; her violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct; her excessive absenteeism; and her future employment status with Petitioner. The notice that instructed Respondent to attend the CFR was mailed to Respondent's home address. On March 28, 2002, Respondent was still incarcerated, and she did not attend the scheduled CFR scheduled for that day at OPS. On March 28, 2002, a CFR was held at OPS in Respondent’s absence. At the CFR held on March 28, 2002, Respondent’s employment history with the School Board was reviewed, including the number of days that Respondent had been absent from her worksite, with special emphasis on the number of days she had been absent without authorized leave. On March 28, 2002, Ms. Blake recommended that Respondent’s employment with the School Board be terminated due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and because of the adverse impact Respondent’s absenteeism was having on the operation of the school site. As of March 28, 2002, Ms. Blake had received no communication from Respondent since their telephone conversation on December 26, 2001. Despite having Ms. Blake’s home telephone number and knowing that she would accept a collect call, Respondent made no effort to contact Ms. Blake after Respondent learned that she would not be released from jail on February 4, 2002. By notice dated April 23, 2002, Respondent was directed to appear on May 8, 2002, at a meeting at OPS to address the employment action that had been recommended by Ms. Blake. This written directive was sent by mail to Respondent's home address. As of May 8, 2002, Respondent was still incarcerated. Because of her incarceration, Respondent did not attend the meeting and had not reported to her worksite. On May 8, 2002, the scheduled meeting was held at OPS. As a result of the meeting, the Superintendent recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment and scheduled the recommendation to be considered by the School Board at its meeting of June 19, 2002. On May 16, 2002, the day after she was released from jail on May 15, 2002, Respondent called Ms. Blake, who instructed her to meet with an administrator at the regional office. Respondent complied with that directive and was ordered by the administrator to report to an alternative work site pending the School Board’s action on the recommendation to terminate her employment. Respondent refused to comply with the order to report to an alternate worksite because she did not want to jeopardize her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. From October 22, 2001, through May 15, 2002, Respondent was incarcerated and was absent from work without authority. From May 16, 2002, through June 19, 2002, Respondent was absent without authority and either failed or refused to report to work. For the school year 2001-2002, Respondent accumulated 142 unauthorized absences. On June 19, 2002, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the following grounds: excessive absenteeism and/or abandonment of position; willful neglect of duty; and violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct. Respondent’s family received Ms. Blake’s memorandum and the notices of scheduled meetings that were mailed by Petitioner to Respondent’s home address while Respondent was incarcerated. Respondent testified that she did not see the memorandum and notices until after she was released from jail. There was no justification for Respondent’s failure to contact Ms. Blake after Respondent learned she would not be released from jail on February 4, 2002. There was no justification for Respondent's failure to attempt to comply with Petitioner's leave policies. There was no justification for Respondent’s refusal to report to the alternate worksite as instructed by the administrator at the regional office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of act and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of excessive absenteeism, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty as alleged in Counts I and II of the Notice of Specific Charges. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain Respondent's suspension without pay and terminate her employment as a school monitor. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to terminate the employment of a non-instructional employee whose performance is alleged to have been unsatisfactory.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Ms. Dickerson was employed in the District as an education paraprofessional. For the 2000-01 school year, she was assigned to Meadow Park Elementary School (the "School"). That year, Ms. Dickerson worked under the supervision and direction of a special education teacher named Kimberly Vargas-Vila, whose half-dozen or so pupils, ranging in age from three to seven years, were children with autism. Ms. Dickerson was one of two paraprofessionals placed in Ms. Vargas-Vila’s classroom for the 2000-01 school year. In the discharge of her duties, Ms. Dickerson was required to feed students, help them in the toilet, assist the teacher in the classroom, assist children in play, watch them on the playground, make copies, and run errands for the teacher. Not long after the school year started, Ms. Vargas-Vila noticed that Ms. Dickerson resisted attempts by the other paraprofessional, who was a so-called "one-on-one" aide assigned to a specific student, to help Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Dickerson wanted to perform certain duties herself and often refused offers of assistance. Ms. Dickerson's unwillingness to share the work load was not initially disruptive but increasingly became so. In October 2000, another problem developed: Ms. Dickerson began to disobey Ms. Vargas-Vila's directions concerning the management of students' behavior. The teacher spoke with Ms. Dickerson about this issue, but Ms. Dickerson refused to discuss the matter with her. Instead, Ms. Dickerson sent a letter to the Board in which she unjustly accused Ms. Vargas-Vila of harassment. Unable on her own to resolve the problems she was having with Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila sought the advice of the School's Principal, Elizabeth Cardozo. After conferring, they decided that the three of them (the principal, the teacher, and the paraprofessional) should meet together. Accordingly, a meeting was held between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Cardozo on October 18, 2000. While the primary topic of discussion was Ms. Dickerson's allegation that Ms. Vargas-Vila had harassed her (which was groundless), other matters were discussed too, with the participants agreeing to reconvene if problems recurred. Despite this meeting on October 18, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila continued to have difficulties with Ms. Dickerson. Therefore, a few weeks later, on November 7, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila wrote a memorandum to Ms. Cardozo that related her concerns about Ms. Dickerson's ongoing failure to follow instructions relating to the behavior management techniques that she (the teacher) wanted to use with a particular student. In this memorandum, Ms. Vargas-Vila explained that she frequently had told Ms. Dickerson to ignore certain inappropriate behaviors in which the student in question was engaging, but Ms. Dickerson refused to comply. Rather than ignore the student, as directed, Ms. Dickerson would continue to talk and interact with the student. Ms. Vargas-Vila also had instructed that the student’s chair be placed slightly apart from the other students, but Ms. Dickerson, disobeying, had moved the student’s chair back towards the others in the group. Ms. Dickerson's defiance was causing friction in the classroom. When Ms. Vargas-Vila witnessed these insubordinate acts, she immediately discussed them with Ms. Dickerson, who either did not comment or expressed her opinion that the teacher's orders were inappropriate. Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum of November 7, 2000, reported as well that Ms. Dickerson continued to object when the teacher asked the other paraprofessional to handle duties that Ms. Dickerson felt were "her" tasks. As a result of Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum, a meeting was held on November 17, 2000, between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, Ms. Cardozo, and a District official named John Stevens. The meeting was difficult because Ms. Dickerson became loud and angry, accusing the attendees, among other things, of plotting to violate her Constitutional rights. She also made the weird charge that Ms. Vargas-Vila had employed a "fake cough" to aggravate her in the classroom. Notwithstanding these impediments to productive discourse, Ms. Vargas-Vila reviewed "improvement strategies" with Ms. Dickerson, who said that she would follow this advice. Afterwards, Ms. Dickerson was provided a written summary of the November 17, 2000, conference, which specified the areas in which improvement was needed and the recommended improvement strategies. For a while after the November 17, 2000, meeting, Ms. Dickerson's performance improved. But before the month was out, Ms. Dickerson had resumed refusing to allow the other paraprofessional to perform certain duties, and she had begun once again to disregard the behavior management techniques that Ms. Vargas-Vila prescribed. These problems continued into the next calendar year. Throughout January 2001, Ms. Dickerson's performance- related problems persisted. Ms. Vargas-Vila talked specifically with Ms. Dickerson about the need for her to follow directions and allow other people to help out in the classroom, but Ms. Dickerson did not change her unsatisfactory behavior. As a result, another meeting with Ms. Cardozo was scheduled, for January 25, 2001. The January 25, 2001, meeting was attended by Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Dickerson. During the meeting, Ms. Dickerson was told that she had failed to follow the improvement strategies that had been recommended——and which she had agreed to implement——during the conference on November 17, 2000. Ms. Dickerson was notified that if she continued to disobey the teacher's directions, she would be subject to disciplinary action. Finally, more improvement strategies were discussed, and these were reduced to writing, as part of the principal's conference notes, a copy of which was provided to Ms. Dickerson on January 30, 2001. As of the January 25, 2001, meeting, Ms. Cardozo was convinced that Ms. Dickerson’s job performance was unsatisfactory and that her actions were interfering with the instructional process in the classroom. Consequently, Ms. Cardozo sought guidance from Diane Curcio-Greaves, a Professional Standards Specialist at the District's headquarters, in regard to the preparation of a performance evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. The conditions of Ms. Dickerson's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement called the Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida and the Association of Education Secretaries and Office Professionals, dated July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000 (the "Union Contract"). The Union Contract forbade the recommendation of an employee for termination based upon an unsatisfactory evaluation unless that employee had been given at least 30 days to improve his or her performance. In view of this contractual provision, Ms. Curcio- Greaves and Ms. Cardozo decided that Ms. Dickerson would be afforded 30 days from the date she received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation within which to correct the identified deficiencies. On February 2, 2001, based on Ms. Vargas-Vila's input as well as her own observations, Ms. Cardozo recorded her assessment of Ms. Dickerson's performance on a Noninstructional Evaluation form used by the District. Ms. Cardozo rated Ms. Dickerson unsatisfactory under the categories of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments (specifically, under the last heading, for failing to follow directions easily and effectively). Ms. Cardozo assigned Ms. Dickerson an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Assistant Principal Diane Bell met with Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001, to discuss the unsatisfactory evaluation and to initiate a 30- day assistance plan. At this meeting, improvement strategies for each area in which her performance had been deemed unsatisfactory were recommended to Ms. Dickerson. These improvement strategies, together with a statement of the reasons why Ms. Dickerson's job performance was considered unsatisfactory, were set forth in a memorandum of assistance dated February 2, 2001, which Ms. Cardozo had prepared earlier. The evaluation and its attachments, including the memorandum of assistance, were presented to Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001. Ms. Dickerson acknowledged receipt of these documents, noting her disagreement with the contents and vowing to appeal "THIS FALSE PLOT!" In accordance with District policy and the Union Contract, Ms. Cardozo was responsible for monitoring Ms. Dickerson's progress during the 30-day assistance period and periodically meeting with Ms. Dickerson to review her performance and provide feedback. Ms. Cardozo scheduled several review conferences with Ms. Dickerson, to occur on Friday, February 16; Monday, February 26; and Monday, March 12, 2001. These dates were provided to Ms. Dickerson in a memorandum dated February 8, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson that same day. The first review conference was held on February 20, 2001.1 Present were the same persons as on February 5: Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Bell, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Cardozo discussed each previously-identified area of deficiency with Ms. Dickerson and told Ms. Dickerson what was expected of her to correct these deficiencies, which persisted. Ms. Dickerson was not receptive to advice and indeed refused to acknowledge that her performance was unsatisfactory. Based upon Ms. Dickerson’s comments and the fact that she had not been following the implementation strategies described in the February 2, 2001, memorandum of assistance, Ms. Cardozo was of the opinion that as of February 20, 2001, Ms. Dickerson’s job performance had not improved. On February 22, 2001, Ms. Cardozo wrote a memorandum detailing the discussion that had taken place during the February 20, 2001, meeting. This memorandum specified the areas of Ms. Dickerson’s job performance that continued to be deficient, and spelled out the steps that Ms. Dickerson needed to take in order to improve. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum on February 22, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson. On February 23, 2001, Ms. Cardozo formally observed Ms. Dickerson in Ms. Vargas-Vila's classroom for one hour. She noticed that Ms. Dickerson continued to be performing unsatisfactorily in the area of interpersonal effectiveness. A few days later, on February 26, 2001, a second review meeting was held with Ms. Dickerson. In attendance were Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Bell, Jeanne Burdsall (a Manager in the District's Office of Professional Standards), and Ms. Dickerson. At this meeting, Ms. Dickerson informed the group that she had spoken with the "Assistant Superintendent" concerning her belief that people were trying to take her job away and give her a bad evaluation. Ms. Dickerson was reminded that on February 5, 2001, she had been advised about the grievance procedures available to union members. Ms. Dickerson was again informed of her right to contact a union representative if she wanted to file a grievance regarding her evaluation. It is evident that by the time of the February 26, 2001, meeting, Ms. Dickerson was not implementing previously- recommended improvement strategies and had no intention of doing so. She continued to deny having performance problems and stubbornly resisted attempts to help her improve. Ms. Dickerson repeated the now-familiar but utterly unsubstantiated accusation that Ms. Vargas-Vila and others were harassing her and plotting to take away her job. Ms. Dickerson's comments had become alarmingly irrational and paranoid. On March 6, 2001, Ms. Dickerson received a copy of Ms. Cardozo's detailed memorandum describing the February 26 meeting. Ms. Cardozo continued to hold the opinion that Ms. Dickerson had not improved her job performance to a satisfactory level. The next day, Ms. Dickerson refused to change a child's diaper at the direct request of Ms. Vargas-Vila, claiming that it was not her job and complaining that the teacher's directive constituted harassment. Ms. Vargas-Vila immediately brought this incident to Ms. Cardozo's attention. Within hours, the principal had notified Ms. Dickerson in writing that she wanted to meet with her the following day, March 8, 2001, in order to review the notes that Ms. Cardozo had made concerning her February 23, 2001, classroom evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. Later that afternoon, Ms. Dickerson appeared in Ms. Cardozo's office, ranting loudly that she was being harassed and asking why they needed to have a meeting. Ms. Cardozo advised Ms. Dickerson that the reason for the meeting was to go over the results of the February 23, 2001, observation. Ms. Dickerson alleged (again) that she could no longer do her job due to the supposed harassment. Ms. Cardozo asked Ms. Dickerson if she was refusing to meet with her, and Ms. Dickerson told her she was not. At that point, Ms. Cardozo told Ms. Dickerson that she would arrange to discuss the observation of February 23, 2001, at the upcoming assistance review meeting, scheduled for March 12, 2001. Thereupon, Ms. Dickerson left Ms. Cardozo’s office, only to return minutes later to tell Ms. Cardozo that she was sick and leaving for the day. In light of Ms. Dickerson's outburst and bizarre behavior, Ms. Cardozo began to worry that she or her staff might be in danger. Ms. Cardozo’s last meeting with Ms. Dickerson was on March 12, 2001. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum of the observation that she had conducted on February 23, 2001. In the memorandum, Ms. Cardozo specifically commented on Ms. Dickerson's lack of interpersonal effectiveness. Ms. Cardozo also handed Ms. Dickerson a Noninstructional Evaluation form that she had completed on March 12, 2001, on which Ms. Dickerson was graded unsatisfactory in the areas of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments——the same areas in which Ms. Dickerson's performance previously had been considered deficient. Overall, the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Because she had failed to correct the identified performance deficiencies within 30 days, Ms. Dickerson was informed via a letter from the Chief Personnel Officer, which she received on March 12, 2001, that effective March 13, 2001, she was being reassigned to her home with pay, pending the Board's next meeting on March 28, 2001, at which time action would be taken to dismiss her. By memorandum dated March 12, 2001, Ms. Cardozo notified the Director of Professional Standards that Ms. Dickerson had been given an unsatisfactory evaluation after the end of a 30-day assistance period. Based upon the unsatisfactory evaluation, Ms. Cardozo requested a District review to determine further action, up to and including termination of Ms. Dickerson's employment. In due course, pursuant to District policy, a competency hearing was convened before a committee of District employees, to review the evaluation process and Ms. Cardozo's recommendation that Ms. Dickerson's employment be terminated. The committee determined that all of the procedures for terminating a non-instructional employee for unsatisfactory performance had been followed, and it voted to uphold Ms. Cardozo's recommendation. The superintendent accepted the committee's recommendation, executing a petition on March 15, 2001, which urged the Board to suspend Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, and to terminate her employment effective 15 days after the Board's decision or following an administrative hearing if timely requested. Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the Board suspended Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, as recommended. Ultimate Factual Determination Ms. Dickerson's job performance was unsatisfactory, and she failed to correct the identified deficiencies within the 30-day period prescribed under the Union Contract, despite the provision of ample assistance to improve her performance.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts. Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?" This answer was false in that: On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00; On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and, On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days. Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed. Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered. Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area. Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they: did not conform to the form required; did not cover the subject matter sufficiently; did not follow a time sequence properly; and, were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom. As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent: had no plans to show what was expected of his students; maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.) allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard; failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period; stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard) allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out; failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment; failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and, failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom. Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects. Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that: He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help; students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment; The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge; The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor; Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality; Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning; Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and, In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student. As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport, who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport. Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating. He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory. Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process. The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class. Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard. Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students. After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were: lesson plans safety conditions, and classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance. After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement. Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers. Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision. It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken. During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors. At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well. In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/ Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates. At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave. In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher. Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out. While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were: classroom and shop cleanliness were poor; it appeared that activities were winding down shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere; the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature; respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and, respondent's lesson plans were not available. When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had. When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to: plan a project; lay out equipment; identify woods and where they came from; use certain equipment. It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating. When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions. As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent: suffers from a lack of organizational ability; has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program; would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and has a weak knowledge of the subject matter. Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect. He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements. In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, and if so, whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Walton County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Harriet Hurley was a teacher at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley had earlier been a teacher in Georgia for eight years, had been employed in Walton County Schools in 1984 for a period of three years, and taught in Okaloosa County Schools for five years. She then returned to Walton County Schools where she has been ever since, for a career of over 30 years. In addition to her responsibilities as a teacher at Walton Middle School, Ms. Hurley assists in scheduling parent- teacher conferences for students at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley’s responsibilities in scheduling conferences are limited to a coordination function. She is not responsible for addressing the substance of the issues to be addressed in the conferences or becoming involved in attempting to resolve them. Principal Hope never asked Ms. Hurley to assume a role as a guidance counselor. Ms. Hurley is employed by the School Board. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Ms. Hurley’s employment is subject to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for “just cause.” As a teacher, Ms. Hurley is required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Walton County, Florida. Ms. Hurley is not the legal guardian of her granddaughter, B.C., who is a student at Walton Middle School. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Hurley’s granddaughter, B.C., approached her in the adult dining area about a group math assignment that was upsetting her. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she had been told by her sixth-grade math teacher, Ms. Black, that her “high grade was gone” because of the failure of her group to complete a group math assignment. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she blamed S.A., another student in her group, for their failure to complete the work. Ms. Hurley immediately left the adult dining area with her lunch only partially eaten and went with B.C. back to Ms. Black’s classroom. B.C. had been released for lunch a few minutes before the other students because she was an A/B Honor Roll student, so the other students were still in the classroom when Ms. Hurley arrived there. When Ms. Hurley and B.C. arrived at the classroom, the students were packing up their personal items in preparation for their release for lunch. Ms. Black testified in part: At that time, I think it was because the students leave five minutes early, A/B honor roll students. I don’t really want to go ahead and teach them anything, because they’re missing that opportunity to learn. At that time I get them to pack up and get their things together to leave for lunch. There was a high level of noise in the classroom. Ms. Black, in her first year as a teacher, was at her desk trying to help some students who did not understand something, and was in a verbal altercation with S.A., who was walking away from her. On November 20, 2013, S.A. was not a student in one of Ms. Hurley’s classes. Ms. Hurley addressed S.A., telling him that he should not talk to his teacher that way. Ms. Hurley told S.A. to “come here to me.” She was upset with S.A. and told him that he needed to stop playing around. In a loud and forceful tone of voice, she told him that he was not going to be the cause of a “straight A” student getting a bad grade and that he needed to concentrate on his schoolwork. She told him that she knew his mother, who worked at a KFC-Taco Bell restaurant in Miramar Beach, and that she would talk to his mother if necessary. S.A. denied that his mother worked at KFC, and Ms. Hurley restated that she knew that his mother did. The other students in the class heard Ms. Hurley’s disparagement and public discipline of S.A. The bell rang and Ms. Hurley and the students began to leave the classroom. S.A. was embarrassed and upset by the incident. Due to the fact that the students were already packing up their things to leave, and because Ms. Black had been in a verbal altercation with S.A., the actions of Ms. Hurley in Ms. Black’s class did not disrupt the students’ learning environment. Ms. Hurley’s actions were unnecessary. She might have comforted B.C., and encouraged B.C. and her parents to pursue the issue with Ms. Black. S.A. was not one of Ms. Hurley’s students and at the time she decided to go to Ms. Black’s class Ms. Hurley had not directly witnessed any behavior by S.A. that called for immediate correction. Even had it been appropriate for Respondent herself to take action based upon her granddaughter’s information, there was no emergency which required that Ms. Hurley intrude upon a colleague’s class and loudly berate S.A. in front of other students. She used her institutional privileges as a teacher to gain access to Ms. Black’s classroom in order to assist her granddaughter. As Ms. Black was leaving her classroom, she saw that S.A. was reluctantly moving toward the door and she noticed he was crying. She attempted to comfort him. Ms. Black then reported the incident to Mr. Jason Campbell, Assistant Principal, who was in the student lunch room. A few minutes later, S.A. also approached Mr. Campbell to report his version of the incident. Ms. Hurley returned to her lunch in the adult dining room. When Ms. Black came in to the dining room later, Ms. Hurley apologized to her for coming into her classroom. That evening, Ms. Hurley drove to Miramar Beach and went to dinner at the fast food restaurant where she knew Ms. A. worked. Ms. Hurley was one of Ms. A’s teachers when Ms. A. had been in the seventh grade, and the two were casual acquaintances. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. what had happened that morning with S.A. and B.C. in their math group. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. that she had “kind of stepped out and went into grandma mode” and had “gotten onto” (disciplined) S.A. Ms. Hurley relayed that she had told S.A. that she knew his mother and that if he did not improve his conduct, she was going to let his mother know about his behavior. During the course of the conversation, Ms. A. relayed that she was concerned about an incident involving a damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom, which was S.A.’s SPEAR classroom (“home room”). The following day, on November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley removed S.A. from his first-period classroom. Neither Principal Hope nor Vice Principal Campbell authorized Ms. Hurley to remove S.A. from his first-period classroom on November 21, 2013. On November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley contacted S.A.’s mother on the telephone on her own initiative and without the authority of Principal Hope or Vice Principal Campbell. Ms. Hurley called Ms. A. on the telephone with S.A. present. Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. talked about the incident involving S.A. and the damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom. The telephone conversation had barely begun when Mr. Hope, upon learning that Ms. Hurley had gone to S.A.’s classroom and removed him from class, came into Ms. Hurley’s room and took S.A. back to Mr. Hope’s office. While the School Board alleged that Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. discussed the incident that happened in Ms. Black’s classroom the day before, this was not shown by the evidence. The allegation that Ms. Hurley was misusing her institutional privileges by engaging in the phone call may be correct, for Ms. Hurley was not authorized to discuss the substance of parent/teacher conferences, but was instead limited to scheduling responsibilities. The evidence did not show that the phone conversation was conducted for personal gain or advantage to Ms. Hurley, however. The School Board’s further argument that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, reduced the ability of Principal Hope to efficiently perform his duties is also rejected. Assuming that Principal Hope could even be considered a “colleague” of Ms. Hurley’s, the evidence showed that he was able to efficiently “track down” S.A. with minimal effort. To the extent that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, exceeded her “job description,” they could be corrected with a simple directive or memorandum, and in the absence of evidence that her actions were taken for her personal gain, they are not a just cause for discipline. Statements were taken from several students in Ms. Black’s math class regarding the incident on November 20th, which vary in detail, but taken as a whole corroborate the findings of fact above regarding the incident on November 20, 2013. No statement was taken from B.C., and neither party called B.C. as a witness at hearing. On December 2, 2013, Ms. Hurley met with Walton Middle School administration to discuss the events of November 20 and November 21, 2013. On December 17, 2013, Principal Tripp Hope issued a letter of reprimand advising Respondent that he would be recommending a 10-day suspension without pay to the Superintendent. On December 18, 2013, the Superintendent notified Respondent of her intention to recommend a 10-day suspension without pay. A Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, notified Respondent of the Petitioner’s intent to suspend her employment for 10 days without pay. (As stipulated by the parties.) Although the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office did not explicitly identify all rules that Ms. Hurley was charged with violating, the allegations of more specific rule violations were included in the Letter of Reprimand which was attached to the charge. Ms. Hurley was not prejudiced or hindered in the preparation of her defense by any lack of specificity in the charging documents. Ms. Hurley is substantially affected by the intended action of the School Board to suspend her employment without pay for ten days. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley failed to “value” the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, or the nurture of democratic citizenship. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not strive for professional growth or did not “seek” to exercise the best professional judgment or integrity. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not “strive” to achieve or sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The evidence showed that by entering S.A.’s classroom and raising her voice in anger towards him in the presence of other students, Ms. Hurley failed to make reasonable effort to protect S.A. from conditions harmful to his learning or to his mental health. The evidence showed that any required discipline of S.A. should not have been administered by Ms. Hurley and so her actions were unnecessary. Her actions, which reduced S.A. to tears, exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. The evidence showed that in entering another teacher’s classroom to assist her granddaughter by disciplining S.A. when he was not even one of her students, Ms. Hurley used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley lacked integrity, high ideals, or human understanding or that she failed to “maintain or promote” those qualities. The evidence did not show that in entering Ms. Black’s classroom during the final minutes of the class, when the students were already packing up their things and preparing to go to lunch, Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that disrupted the students’ learning environment. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that reduced her ability or her colleague’s ability to effectively perform duties. One might speculate as to whether Ms. Black’s ability to maintain control over her class in the future was undermined by Ms. Hurley’s aggressive intrusion, but Ms. Black did not testify that her ability to effectively perform was reduced and this was not otherwise shown. There was similarly no evidence offered to indicate that Ms. Hurley’s own effectiveness was reduced. Her actions were not taken in her own classroom, there was no evidence that she had any of Ms. Black’s students in her classes, or that her own students or the student body generally was even aware of her actions. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, constitute misconduct in office. Her actions are just cause for suspension of her employment without pay. The School Board witnesses conceded that Ms. Hurley has never received “formal” counseling, and presented no documentary evidence that she had been counseled even informally. The School Board did present credible testimony from Principal Hope and Assistant Principal Campbell that Ms. Hurley had been informally counseled regarding raising her voice with students and for communication with her peers. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, were not so serious as to justify a ten-day suspension, but do warrant suspension without pay for three calendar days.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of the School Board, is guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.37, and if so, whether termination of her employment is an appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating employees in the school district. Respondent is a non-instructional (support) employee at Explorer K-8 School (Explorer) in Spring Hill. She began working at Explorer as a Custodian I in school year 2014-2015 and was assigned the night shift, 3:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Before coming to Explorer, Respondent was a custodian at Hernando High School in Brooksville, but left to fill a vacancy at Explorer, which was closer to her home. She was hired at the recommendation of Homer Lawson, an African American male and head custodian at Explorer. Barbara Kidder is principal at Explorer and has ultimate supervisory responsibility for all employees at the school, including the custodial staff. Lillian DiTucci is the assistant principal and also has supervisory duties over the custodial staff. Custodians at Explorer are assigned to either the day or night shift. Lawson, as head custodian, is responsible for supervising all custodians, regardless of the shift assignment. Eric Harris is the night custodian supervisor and is next in the chain of command below Lawson. Although Lawson works the day shift, he is present for approximately one hour of the night shift and meets with Harris prior to the start of that shift to go over various issues, including performance of custodial staff. Lawson is the first person to arrive at Explorer the next morning and conducts walk-throughs to ensure the areas have been cleaned by the night shift. As head custodian, Lawson is also in charge of custodial supplies at Explorer. If a custodian is out of supplies, Lawson requires the custodian to write on the board the supplies he or she needs for the next day and then he processes the request. The supplies usage is documented in a log book, with notation of the custodian's name and the date the supplies were issued. If the documentation shows one custodian is going through more supplies than the others, Lawson inquires of the custodian. Because of strict budgetary concerns, Lawson is vigilant in tracking the use of supplies. He does not deny necessary supplies, but he will give direction to be more responsible. The School Board has adopted Policy 6.37, which establishes standards for the separation, discipline, and discharge of non-instructional employees, including Respondent. Paragraph (5)(d) recognizes three categories of offenses and a guide for recommended penalties. Relevant to this proceeding are the offenses and recommended penalties for Groups II and III. The penalty for Group II offenses ranges from a written reprimand for the first offense to discharge for a third offense. Group III offenses are the most serious and carry a recommended penalty of "up to discharge" for the first violation. The School Board has charged Respondent with violating two Group II offenses, referred to as items in the policy: Item 7 - Creating or contributing to unsafe, unsanitary or poor housekeeping conditions; and Item 13 - Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. Respondent is also charged with violating five Group III offenses: Item 1 - Insubordination; Item 4 - Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned task; Item 12 - Violation of a posted or otherwise known Board or departmental rule, procedure, order, regulation of any State or County statute or ordinance which is related to the employee's employment; Item 14 - Improper racial or sexual comments, harassment or acts; and Item 23 - Refusal to work overtime or hours as assigned. The Inappropriate Conduct Which Led to the Charges From the very beginning of her employment with Explorer, Respondent exhibited numerous performance issues, including the complete failure to perform assigned tasks, which resulted in a high volume of complaints from teachers and staff throughout the fall term and required multiple meetings with, and direction from, supervisors. On September 4, 2014, or a few days after she began working at the school, Harris met with Respondent regarding her cell phone usage during work hours. Harris witnessed and received complaints from other school employees that Respondent was on her cell phone "a lot," which resulted in less productivity and caused a distraction because she often kept her phone on speakerphone. Respondent responded that she would shut it off and use it only for emergencies. Respondent was assigned to clean the classroom of Michele Hann, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher at Explorer. On Thursday, September 18, 2014, Hann emailed Lawson and stated that her classroom had not been properly cleaned in a manner that was acceptable for ESE students, some of whom had medical needs requiring a very clean environment. She also noted that food from the day before was still on the floor, the paper towels by the sink had not been replaced since the previous Friday, and her Terminator bottle (containing a disinfectant) was empty. Harris was given a copy of Hann's email and discussed these complaints with Respondent. Among other responsibilities, Respondent was required to restock paper towels in the classrooms that she cleaned. On September 19, Lori Linauer, a teacher at Explorer, emailed Lawson that the bathroom in her classroom had been out of paper towels since the day before. Based on these complaints, Respondent was assigned a new area that required less responsibility, but the complaints regarding her performance deficiencies continued. One of her new assignments was cleaning the school's locker rooms. A few days later, Harris received a complaint that the locker rooms were not being cleaned. It takes "at least a half hour [to clean] each locker room to do a good job," and the night shift ends at 11:30 p.m. Harris observed that on September 22 and 23, Respondent did not begin cleaning the locker rooms until around 10:45 p.m. and 11:10 p.m., respectively. These observations enabled Harris to confirm that Respondent was doing her work "quick at the end of the night," without properly cleaning the rooms. Harris discussed this concern with Respondent and even assisted her with cleaning the locker rooms on several occasions. Custodians are instructed to place their carts in the custodial closet at the end of their shifts. On September 25, Harris met with Respondent after she continued to leave her cart and radio in the recreation hall at the end of her shift. Respondent gave no credible reason why she ignored this requirement. On September 29, Harris received another complaint that the locker rooms were not properly cleaned. When he confronted Respondent about this complaint, she explained that other rooms were messy and she had "meetings," implying that she had insufficient time to finish her work. Because Respondent had still not secured her assigned badge that would allow her access to the locker rooms (once they were electronically locked in the evening), Harris had to unlock the boys' locker room at 11:30 p.m. and then retrieve her cleaning materials so that she could finish the job. On October 21, Harris checked the boys' gang bathroom (a multi-use bathroom with six or more stalls) and found the toilet bases filthy and not wiped down. Harris met with Respondent to discuss this concern. The next day he noticed that Respondent failed to properly clean the toilets and mirrors in the girls' gang bathroom. Harris once again met with Respondent to discuss these concerns. Respondent told Harris that she needed a brush with a stick on it to make the job easier. Harris told her that she should clean the toilets the way everyone else did, by bending down and wiping them clean. On October 24, Respondent telephoned the principal's secretary at 4:15 p.m. and said she would be late because she had to pick up her employee's badge. However, Respondent did not pick up her badge that day. On October 28, Joanne Yarin, a Media Specialist at the school, informed Lawson by email that the women's restroom in the media center ran out of paper towels the afternoon before. Yarin had asked Respondent to refill the paper towels, but Respondent told her she wasn't sure if there were any more in the supply room. When the paper towels were not restocked by the following morning, Yarin contacted another custodian who promptly complied with her request. On October 29, Karen Federico, a music teacher at Explorer, complained to Lawson by email that Respondent failed to vacuum her classroom or take out the trash the night before. She also complained that the concession area women's bathroom had no paper towels. On November 3, Tammy Ashurst, a behavior specialist at the school, emailed Lawson regarding her concerns about Respondent's performance. A copy of the email was forwarded to Kidder and Harris. Ashurst pointed out that Respondent's failure to sweep or vacuum the floors was a recurring problem. When she entered her classroom that morning, Ashurst found a large section of the floor dirty and sticky and she had to ask another custodian to clean it. Ashurst asked Lawson to speak with Respondent regarding this issue. On November 5, Respondent telephoned the principal's secretary to say if she was not at work by 5:00 p.m. that day she was not coming in. She did not show up for work. Whether Respondent turned in a leave form for that day is not of record. Beside the performance issues, Respondent did not interact well with other staff at Explorer. On November 7, she was involved in a verbal altercation with another custodian, Haley Carson, whose car (with the Carson baby inside) was nearly struck by Respondent's car the prior evening when Respondent sped out of the parking lot at the end of their shifts. Respondent also had a verbal altercation with another co-worker in the parking lot after parking at an angle and into the adjacent parking space used by the co-worker. Respondent told the co-worker that she (Respondent) always parked like that and to move her car if she didn't like it. On November 7, Harris received a complaint from another school employee, Mr. Baroudi, whose position is unknown, that the garbage in his room had not been emptied on two occasions and food sat in the trash can for days. On November 18, Juliet Figueroa, another night shift custodian who had just started work the day before, was given the rundown on her job (a "411") by Respondent. During the conversation Respondent asked Figueroa if "you know the manager Homer [Lawson]? I don't call him that I call him nigger." During the same conversation, Respondent referred to a former co-worker, Mundreanu, who is Romanian, as a "communist." She also asked Figueroa if she was a Puerto Rican, since Respondent thought she looked like a Mexican. Figueroa was "taken aback" by these comments and reported the incident to Kidder. At hearing, Respondent claimed that Figueroa misunderstood her and that she actually used the word "negro," which means black in Spanish, and not the word "nigger." However, Figueroa understands Spanish and knows the difference between "nigger" and "negro." Respondent's assertion that she did not use this language has not been accepted. On or about November 19, during his morning walk- through, Lawson observed feces in the stalls and soap scum on the walls of the girls' gang bathroom near the school cafeteria that should have been cleaned by Respondent. Lawson spoke with Harris and told him to direct Respondent to take care of it. Harris directed Respondent to clean the area, but she failed to comply with his instructions. Lawson then informed DiTucci. On November 20, DiTucci met with Respondent to discuss these latest performance deficiencies. Respondent refused to attend the meeting unless Lawson was not present, claiming she did not consider him to be her supervisor and he had "disrespected" her at work. At the meeting, Respondent argued the substance was chocolate and not feces, but the areas should have been cleaned regardless of the substance. By then, DiTucci had checked it out and confirmed Lawson's initial findings. Respondent also contended that she was not given sufficient supplies to finish her work, even though she sometimes used three times the amount of supplies as other custodians. Finally, she claimed that Lawson had accused her of stealing supplies but there is no credible evidence to support this assertion. The meeting ended with Respondent threatening to hire an attorney to respond to the charge that she was stealing supplies. On November 21, Harris documented that Maggie, another school custodian, witnessed Respondent's cart not moving for more than an hour earlier in the day. Each room typically takes 15 to 20 minutes to clean, and the cart is parked outside the room for easy access. Harris testified that this may have explained why Respondent's areas were not being properly cleaned. The same day, without seeking permission, Respondent told Harris she was leaving early, saying she "forgot to punch out for lunch goodnight." Custodians are required to punch out for "lunch" from 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m., a paid break. There is no option available to employees to work through lunch period and leave work earlier at the end of the shift. As of November 25, Respondent had still not cleaned the feces off the girls' bathroom wall. As a result, Kidder asked Harris to again direct Respondent to clean the girls' bathroom. She also asked Harris to remind Respondent to turn in a leave form for November 21, and to explain that she must punch in and out for lunch. Respondent finally complied with the directive to clean the girls' bathroom wall after DiTucci and Harris accompanied her to the bathroom, showed her the feces, and directed her to clean the area. On December 1, Stacy Tarbox, a paraprofessional at the school, emailed Lawson and Harris regarding Respondent's failure to clean the girl's locker room. Tarbox noted that it was dirty, the lockers had a thick layer of dust on top, the walls had not been cleaned, and the floors had not been pressure washed for some time. This was the same locker room Harris had previously talked to Respondent about in September. On December 2, Figueroa filed a bullying and harassment complaint against Respondent based on the November 18 incident in which Respondent made disparaging remarks about Lawson and Mundreanu. The essence of the complaint was that these comments created a hostile working environment. That afternoon, Kidder conducted a conference with DiTucci, Lawson, Respondent, and her union representative to discuss the bullying complaint and allegations that Respondent's conduct constituted a violation of three Group III offenses (items 7, 14, and 23) and one Group II offense (item 7). In response to these charges, Respondent initially said she could not remember using any racial terms when speaking with Figueroa but later labeled Figueroa as a liar and threatened to sue her. She claimed that she did not know what a "commie" meant and again called Figueroa a liar. She also said she never saw feces on the bathroom wall. If that was the case, she should have asked Harris where it was rather than doing nothing. In response to the charge that she refused to meet with her supervisor, Lawson, she claimed that he had accused her of stealing supplies, disrespected her, and hindered her in performing her work. Finally, she contended that before she left work on November 21 (without punching out for lunch), she told Harris that she was not feeling well. At the conclusion of the meeting, Kidder twice asked Respondent if she had any further response to the allegations and what it would take to change things. Respondent refused to respond. Respondent also declined to say if she intended to return to work at her assigned time and perform her duties. Kidder ultimately determined on December 18 that the bullying and harassment complaint was unfounded since it was an isolated incident, but concluded that Respondent's use of the offensive language was a violation of item 14 in Group III, which prohibits the use of improper racial comments. Beside the performance issues, Respondent's behavior at school offended other custodians. According to one co- worker, Respondent made the work environment feel "hostile" and "tense." There was testimony that co-workers had confrontations with Respondent about her work ethic and that Respondent gave a minimal effort to complete tasks. Also, there were nights when co-workers had to help her complete her assignments. Finally, the record shows that Respondent was always complaining about work and how she did not like her job. In short, there was a "bad atmosphere" at school among the custodians. Given the myriad of performance deficiencies, Lawson recommended to Kidder that Respondent be terminated, as her performance had steadily gone "downhill." Harris agreed with this assessment and pointed out that when compared with other custodians, Respondent's job performance was "poor to fair." Notably, the number of complaints about Respondent far exceeded those received for any other custodian. Kidder decided to make a recommendation at the school level to terminate Respondent. Her recommendation was based on Respondent's gross insubordination, a failure to perform assigned tasks, and violations of policy 6.37. This recommendation was supported by the fact that there were numerous emails and documents from teachers and staff outlining Respondent's issues as well as a series of meetings to address the concerns, none of which resulted in an improvement in Respondent's performance. In accordance with school protocol, a pre- determination meeting was held by Kidder on December 10, 2014, for the purpose of allowing Respondent to respond to not only the charges discussed at the December 2 meeting, but all offenses that had occurred since September. Respondent attended the meeting with a union representative. During the meeting, she refused to take responsibility for her actions and offered only excuses. She was argumentative with School staff and her union representative. Based on her lack of remorse and caustic attitude towards supervisors and co-workers, Kidder determined that termination was the appropriate action. On January 7, 2015, the Superintendent recommended that Respondent should be terminated, and pending final action by the School Board, she should be suspended, with pay. After Respondent filed a letter appealing this proposed action, the Superintendent recommended that the School Board suspend Respondent, without pay and benefits, pending an administrative appeal to DOAH. The recommendation was accepted by the School Board and the matter was referred to DOAH. At hearing, Respondent failed to present any credible evidence to rebut the charges or the evidence presented. She simply offered excuses like Lawson was difficult to work with, she was assigned a difficult area to clean due to high use, her co-workers did not help her clean, and she did not get sufficient supplies. While a former custodian testified that she also had problems getting sufficient supplies from Harris, neither spoke directly with Lawson to remedy this situation. Moreover, the evidence shows that Respondent used far more supplies than necessary and far more than other custodians.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Hernando County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment for violating the following offenses in School Board Policy 6.37: items 7 and 13 in Group II and items 1, 4, 12, 14, and 23 in Group III. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of July, 2015.
