The Issue May Respondent's annual contract as non-instructional personnel (school bus driver) for the 1991-1992 school year be lawfully terminated by Petitioner School Board? Does Respondent retain any rights to renewal of his annual employment contract under the circumstances of this case?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James Gravelding, was hired by Petitioner School Board in February 1989 as a school bus driver. With the exception of tenured teachers, all School Board employees, including those employees covered under the AFSCME collective bargaining agreement, are employed on an annual contract basis for a period not exceeding one year. At all times material, Respondent was an annual contract employee covered under the AFSCME agreement. Neither Respondent's employment contract nor the collective bargaining agreement provide any recourse for an employee who is not reappointed for a succeeding school year. The School Board has absolute discretion to reappoint or not reappoint any annual contract employee by a new annual contract at the end of each school year/contract term. Respondent was first employed on annual contract from February 1989 to June 1989. That annual contract and succeeding annual contracts covered the 1989-1990 school year, the 1990-1991 school year, and the 1991-1992 school year. During the course of his 1991-1992 annual contract, on November 7, 1991, Respondent was recommended for termination. The reason for the termination recommendation was Respondent's alleged violation of School Board policy with regard to the reporting of accidents. The charging document specifically stated: This action was necessitated by your failure to follow School Board Transportation Procedures in general, and Procedure (504.1)(6.B.) (Reporting of Accidents) in particular. Petitioner School Board's policy at (504.1) (6.B.) (Reporting of Accidents) is published in the "School Bus Drivers and Aides Handbook" and provides: 6.B. REPORTING OF ACCIDENTS: Drivers of school board vehicles will be required to report all accidents, violations, citations occurring in school board vehicles, suspensions, and/or revocations of driver license. Failure to report or inaccurate reporting shall be grounds for termination of employment. Accidents in a board owned vehicle must be reported at the time of the accident to the transportation department and in accordance with Florida Statute 316.065: "The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any persons or property damage, shall immediately by the quickest means of communication, give notice of the accident to the local police department, if such accident occurs within a municipality; otherwise, to the office of the county sheriff of the nearest office or station of the Florida Highway Patrol. Respondent had received a copy of and was aware of the foregoing policy. On October 21, 1991, Respondent was driving his usual morning route in a substitute school bus, starting from the New Smyrna Beach school bus terminal. He left the terminal at 6:15 a.m. to pick up and deliver approximately 51 high school students. At approximately 6:45 a.m. he had all of the high school students loaded on the bus. At that time, he made a left- hand turn at the intersection of Indian River Boulevard and Route One, hitting a child who was chasing the bus by running in the inside turn lane. Either the child's foot or leg was injured at that time. It was not yet daylight, and Respondent did not see the child before or after the accident. Respondent felt no "bump" and was unaware that the accident had occurred. However, at that time, he was aware of a number of students standing in the back of the bus, looking out the window. These students only sat down after about ten minutes. No one immediately reported the accident to Respondent. At approximately 7:00 a.m., (fifteen minutes after the accident and five minutes after the children sat down) Respondent completed delivery of the high school students to New Smyrna Beach High School. As they exited the bus, one student reported to Respondent that he thought Respondent had run over a child's foot at the Indian River Boulevard and Route One intersection. Although Respondent's testimony wobbled on whether or not other students concurred with the spokesman who made the oral accident report to Respondent, the portion of Respondent's testimony to the effect that several students concurred in the oral report and his prior admission that several students concurred in the oral report are accepted here. Respondent testified that he had assumed that the students were kidding about the accident and told them so. He made this assumption despite the fact that he had never been lied to by the students involved and despite the fact that Respondent regarded the spokesman as a pretty good kid. Respondent further admitted there were no indicators of dishonesty in the students' report. He simply felt the accident report to him by a few students when he stopped at New Smyrna Beach High School approximately fifteen minutes after the accident occurred could not be true because if it had been true, the majority of the other students should have said something to him at the precise time of the accident. After the high school students exited his bus, Respondent drove behind the high school and tried to call his supervisor, Barbara Ivey, who was based in Daytona. He overheard someone else calling her and discovered she was out that day on leave. Standard procedure was for a substitute supervisor to be on duty. Respondent made no further attempts to report the alleged accident to that supervisor or to anyone else until much later, despite the fact that at all times material he had a working radio in his bus and knew that a dispatcher was on duty to take all radioed calls from drivers. Respondent also did not go into the high school to make a report to the high school principal or to contact School Board administrators by telephone. Respondent merely went on to complete his next two bus runs. Respondent completed his pickup and delivery of elementary students at approximately 7:50 a.m. He did not go into the elementary school to make a report to the elementary school principal or contact School Board administrators by telephone. At approximately 8:00 a.m., Respondent began his pickup of middle school children. Either while still on his middle school run or after completing his middle school run and while on his way back to the New Smyrna Beach school bus terminal, a dispatcher contacted Respondent by radio and asked him to telephone Mr. Crawford, Operations Administrator for the School Board's Transportation Department. No reason for this request was given by the dispatcher to Respondent, but in fact, Mr. Crawford had heard about the alleged accident from other sources and was trying to determine which bus was involved. Respondent did not report the alleged accident to the dispatcher when he received this notice to call Mr. Crawford. Respondent never went into the middle school to make an accident report to the principal or to contact School Board administrators by telephone. After he returned to the New Smyrna Beach school bus terminal, where there were no supervisors, Respondent consulted some older bus drivers and relied on their suggestion to make out an accident report form. When he could not find an accident report form, he made a very cursory explanation of events on a "suggested complaint form." Respondent's explanation on the "suggested complaint form" read only: student told me while unloading at High School that a kid was chasing Bus thru (sic) intersection of Indian River Blvd. and Route 1. I had no knowledge of this Respondent then placed the suggested complaint form in the interoffice mail at the New Smyrna Beach school bus terminal so that the form was received by his supervisor, Mrs. Ivey, in her Daytona office the next morning when she reported back to work. It is conceivable that the form arrived in her office the afternoon of the accident, but there is no clear proof to that effect. Respondent conceded that if one were certain that an accident had actually occurred, this method would not be the quickest way to report it. Only at that point, after putting the "suggested complaint form" in the interoffice mail, at approximately 9:00 a.m., did Respondent telephone Mr. Crawford from the New Smyrna Beach school bus terminal. The entire content of this conversation is in dispute, but it is abundantly clear that Respondent never volunteered any information to Mr. Crawford to the effect that he may have accidently hit a student with his bus, injuring the student. Respondent then went home. About 10:00 a.m., the dispatcher summoned Respondent from his home to the terminal where he met with various School Board administrators, including Mr. Crawford, and an officer of the Edgewater Police Department, who informed Respondent he had been involved in a hit and run. Only after this conversation did School Board administrators have a chance to interview the Respondent or go to the hospital to interview the injured child. The purpose of the School Board's accident report policy is to ensure the safety of school children and to permit immediate response and investigation of accidents by the School Board and by law enforcement for purposes of criminal/traffic prosecutions and defense of civil liability/damages actions. The radio dispatcher system was instituted during Respondent's period of employment so there would be communication with the buses all of the time that school buses were in service. Administrators are on call 24 hours a day in the event a serious problem occurs and can be "beeped" by the bus dispatcher. Respondent was aware at all times that his bus radio was available for just the type of emergency situation as occurred on October 21, 1991. During the preceding school year (the 1990-1991 school year), while Respondent was driving a school bus, one of his child passengers was injured and another child passenger reported the injury to Respondent. On that occasion, Respondent immediately pulled the bus over and reported the accident by radio to the dispatcher. When the School Board investigated the October 21, 1991 accident, no points were assessed against Respondent either by a point system adopted under School Board policy or under a point system adopted by the State of Florida. Respondent also was not prosecuted by the authorities for any traffic infractions or for injury to the child. The record is barren of any information as to whether or not any civil liability or damages were assessed against Respondent or the School Board as a result of this accident. Subsequent to the October 21, 1991 accident, Respondent was not processed through a Safety Committee review of a graduated point system established under (505)I, (505)II, (505)IV, (505)V, (505)VI and (504.1) (6.D. and F.) of the School Board "Support Services Policies." However, it was not shown that those policies superseded policy (504.1)(6.B.) (Reporting of Accidents) which specifically requires termination of employees for failures and inadequacies of accident reporting. There is no School Board policy that mandates graduated disciplinary actions in place of mandatory termination under (504.1) (6.B.) (Reporting of Accidents). The AFSCME collective bargaining agreement does not require graduated discipline before dismissal. School Board Policy (505)II utilizes language identical to the termination policy of (504.1) (6.B.). Moreover, the job of school bus driver is one in which driving constitutes an essential part of the job duties, and Policy (505)VI B. provides, in pertinent part: When an employee of the school district is terminated as a driver, the committee shall determine whether driving constitutes an essential part of the employee's job duties. If driving is an essential part of the job duties 'termination as a driver' shall result in termination of the employee's employment with the school district. . . Prior to the 1991-1992 contract period, Respondent had not had an exemplary employment history with the School Board, even though all concerned admitted he was a technically proficient school bus driver. He almost had not been recommended for re-employment for the 1991-1992 school year due to marginal performance. The problems experienced by the administration in connection with Respondent involved a history of actual violations and of numerous unproven complaints against him for unprofessional behavior, violation of smoking, drinking, and dress policies, and a prior minor preventable accident. Respondent had conferenced repeatedly with administrators and had always promised improved behavior and policy compliance. Prior to the date of accident herein, he had cleared up all his prior deficiency points through in-service training, recertification, and riding evaluations by safety officers. However, previously, on March 28, 1991, as a condition of rehiring him on annual contract for the 1991-1992 school year, the School Board had required him to do certain things and had specifically warned him in writing that any further proven policy violations of any type would result in termination. On November 7, 1991, after investigation of the October 21, 1991 incident was completed, Respondent was terminated from his 1991-1992 annual contract. See Finding of Fact 4, supra. Respondent was not offered an annual contract for the 1992-1993 school year.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board of Volusia County enter a Final Order ratifying the termination of Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-8269 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF 1-4. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative, the proposals are covered in the preliminary material of the Recommended Order. 5-7. Accepted, except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Accepted, except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 11. Substantively accepted but rephrased to more correctly reflect the record and eliminate mere argumentation. 12-14. Accepted, except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Inaccuracies corrected. Accepted, except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Mere argumentation is also rejected. Accepted, except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Substantively accepted but rephrased to more correctly reflect the record and eliminate mere argumentation. Rejected as partially unproven and partially unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Mere argumentation is also rejected. Accepted, except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Respondent's PFOF Respondent did not submit any PFOF. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah S. Crumbley, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire Maitland Green, Suite 110 601 South Lake Destiny Road Maitland, Florida 32751 Dr Joan Kowal, Superintendent Volusia County School Board P. O. Box 2118 Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collin Hall, has been employed with the Lee County School District since August 13, 2001. He is currently assigned as a Bus Operator in Petitioner’s Transportation Department. Respondent is a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (“SPALC”) and has been a member during all times relevant to this matter. Respondent was assigned as an unassigned regular (UAR) bus operator during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school year. A UAR is available each day to be assigned to a bus when the regular driver is out sick or if the bus route is challenging. The District considers a UAR bus operator as its most professional bus operator. The allegations against Respondent are set forth in the Petition for Termination of Employment filed with DOAH (the Petition). In relevant part, the Petition charges Respondent with the following: failing to control students on the bus Respondent was operating; failing to protect students on the bus if an emergency should develop due to the conduct of the students; failing to ensure that each passenger on the bus was wearing a safety belt; failing to maintain order and discipline, require all passengers remain seated and keep the aisles clear, and immediately report to the designated official student misconduct occurring on the bus in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.017; grabbing a student in violation of Board Policy 5.26; failing to adhere to the highest ethical standards and to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students in violation of Board Policies 5.02 and 5.29; and failing to call a dispatcher for assistance if a discipline problem is not resolved in a few minutes as outlined in the Lee County School District’s Handbook for bus operators. Respondent attended various trainings during his tenure with the District, including training entitled, “Wolfgang Student Management,” “All Safe in their Seats,” “Dealing with Difficult Students/Seatbelts,” “Bully on Bus,” “ESE Behavior” and “First Line of Defense.” All of these classes provided training in student management or student discipline on a school bus. In addition to receiving yearly and periodic training, Respondent was provided a manual entitled “School Bus Driver’s Manual, Critical Incident Procedures” published by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and distributed by the District to all bus operators. Page 14 of the manual outlines the procedures to be used for disruptive students. The Bus Driver’s Manual further provides in its Introduction that: The procedures outlined in this document are guidelines (emphasis added) and should be reviewed and tailored by each school district to conform to local policies – always (emphasis theirs) adhere to the district emergency procedures. Although these guidelines reflect the best practices of several Florida school district transportation departments, no one can foresee the details of every emergency. Many emergencies require the driver’s best judgment, keeping in mind the priorities of life safety (sic), protection of property and the environment. In keeping with the FDOE’s directive to tailor the guidelines to conform to the District’s local policies, the District established a policy for the “Preservation of Order on Special Needs Bus.” That policy is outlined in Robert Morgan’s August 24, 2008, Memorandum to Professional Standards. It requires the school bus operator “and/or attendant” to preserve order and good behavior on the part of all pupils being transported. It also provides that: shall an emergency develop due to conduct of the pupils on the bus, the bus driver and/or attendant shall take steps reasonably necessary to protect the pupils on the bus. They are not obligated to place themselves in physical danger; however, they are obligated to immediately report pupil misconduct to a Transportation Supervisor. (emphasis supplied) On May 21, 2008, Respondent was assigned to Bus 999, along with bus attendant Kelia Wallace. Bus 999 transported students that attend Royal Palm Exceptional Center. Royal Palm Exceptional Center is a school that educates students with special needs, including those that may have emotional issues that result in disruptive behavior. All Royal Palm students have Individual Education Plans that require special transportation. Bus 999 was equipped with an audio and video recording system, as are all Exceptional Student Education (ESE) busses in Lee County. The audio and video are recorded to a hard drive which can be viewed at a later time. Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation South, was alerted of an issue on Bus 999 on the evening of May 21, 2008. Morgan was informed that Bus 999 made an unscheduled stop at the San Carlos Park Fire Station during its afternoon route earlier that day. As a result, on the morning of May 22, 2008, Morgan viewed the video recording from Bus 999 from the previous afternoon. Following his review of the footage, Morgan directed a member of his staff to copy the relevant portions of the raw footage to a compact disc. The information on the disc was then forwarded to the District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity for review and further investigation. There was some testimony from Respondent doubting the accuracy of the video and inferring that the video had been altered in some way. However, the record is devoid of any evidence to contradict the audio and video evidence submitted on compact disc by the District. In addition, there was credible eye witness testimony relative to the incident. After Respondent picked up the students at their school and was following the route to deliver them home, Student C.M. was acting inappropriately in the back of the bus. From his driver’s seat, Respondent commanded C.M. to sit down, which was ignored. Respondent pulled over, stopped the bus and proceeded to the back of the bus to deal with C.M. Respondent grabbed C.M., lifted him off the floor of the bus, carried him several rows forward, and put him into another seat on the bus. C.M. was not kicking, punching or threatening any other student when Respondent took this action. C.M. continued to carry on a taunting dialogue with students, including J.O., who was in the back of the bus. Respondent then proceeded on the route. After several minutes Respondent noticed some paper sitting in the middle of the aisle. While the bus was moving, Respondent ordered J.O. to come forward in the aisle to retrieve the piece of paper he had thrown toward the front of the bus. As a result, J.O. walked by C.M. who was still taunting J.O. and other students. The two students then become involved in a physical altercation. Respondent said nothing and continued to drive the bus. The two students continued to fight for approximately 40 seconds before Respondent stopped the bus and walked toward the back of the bus to get a closer look. The fight continued for an entire minute before Respondent took any action to intervene or break up the fight. Instead, Respondent instructed his bus attendant to write up a disciplinary referral (students fighting), but stood nearby and watched the students fight. Respondent said nothing to the students. Respondent then turned his back on the fight, threw up his hands in disgust and returned to the driver’s seat to resume driving the bus. Respondent did not contact dispatch or law enforcement regarding the fight. Approximately 30 seconds later, student C.M. yelled an expletive at student J.S. J.S. came forward, confronted C.M., and battered him to the point where C.M. ended up on the floor of the bus, where J.S. punched and kicked him numerous times. Respondent said nothing. The incident continued for another 20 seconds before J.S. backed off. Respondent again walked down the aisle toward the students. While lying on the floor between the seats, C.M. complained that he was injured. Respondent waited several seconds prior to attempting to assess C.M.’s injuries. Respondent then stated to C.M., “Let me see your nose.” Respondent observed that C.M. suffered a bloody nose as a result of the altercation. Respondent did not provide any immediate medical attention or care to C.M. Respondent returned to the driver’s seat and began to drive. Respondent drove the bus to the San Carlos Park Fire Department station where C.M. received first aide from an Emergency Medical Technician. C.M.’s father was also notified and responded to the scene. Respondent attempted to defend his conduct by indicating that he would have been injured or he could have injured one of the students if he attempted to break up the altercations. This testimony is not credible. Respondent admitted that bus operators are prohibited from picking up students and that he should have used verbal prompts during the other incidents to urge the students to stop fighting. Respondent testified that prior to the events depicted on video, C.M. had responded to an earlier verbal prompt by the bus attendant to return to his seat. Respondent’s testimony is inconsistent and not entirely credible in this regard. In a further effort to mitigate Respondent’s conduct, Respondent’s counsel attempted to portray the students on the bus as completely uncontrollable and the District or school as unsupportive of the bus operators hired to transport these students. However, credible evidence showed that disruptive students were regularly suspended from the bus and from school. C.M. had proven to be a discipline problem on the bus. C.M. historically was confrontational and argumentative with the other students. Notwithstanding C.M.’s prior history of misconduct and violence on the bus, the District suspended C.M. from the bus for one day. Whether Respondent failed to take adequate corrective measures to ensure that C.M. did not repeat such actions prior to allowing him to continue riding the bus is irrelevant to this proceeding. However, Respondent was aware that at least one of the students on the bus had been previously disciplined for inappropriate conduct. Respondent had experience transporting Royal Palm students and had transported Royal Palm students previously during the 2007-2008 school year. In addition, Respondent stated that he had attended all of the training the District provided regarding the discipline and handling of disruptive students on a school bus. It is clear from the record that Respondent had been trained to deal with such students. Respondent mentioned the word “judgment” repeatedly throughout his testimony. Although judgment plays a role in the control of student behavior, the FDOE School Bus Driver’s Manual spells out the protocol for dealing with disruptive students. The first three things a bus operator is to do is to tell students to stop fighting, pull off the road to a safe place and call dispatch and have them contact parents. Judgment is not a part of any of the above instructions, and Respondent failed to follow two out of three requirements. He neither told the students to stop fighting nor called dispatch to inform them of the fights. The bus operator is then to go to the area of the fight, assess the situation, identify the students involved and attempt to gain control. If the operator cannot gain control the FDOE manual states that the operator should radio for help, remove other students from the area of the fight, intervene if the situation is life-threatening, or if not, to monitor and wait for assistance and use reasonable force to prevent injury to himself and the students. Respondent never attempted to gain control of the situation and then, when it did get out of control, he never radioed for help, removed other students from the area of the fight or used reasonable force to prevent injury to the students. Morgan testified that Respondent’s alleged violation of the policy for safety belts was “not the issue,” and the District was not seeking to discipline Respondent for anything related to the non-use of safety belts. Consequently, the District effectively withdrew this charge at hearing. Also, the District did not introduce as evidence the School District of Lee County Transportation Services Operator’s, Assistant’s and Monitor’s Handbook. The charge that Respondent did not follow the procedure as outlined in the Handbook therefore fails for lack of evidence. Respondent failed to comply with the District’s policy for preserving order on a special needs bus. He did not exercise his best judgment. His testimony as to why he did not physically intervene in the fights between C.M. and J.O. and J.S. for fear that he would injure himself or the students is not credible. Although he directed Ms. Wallace to write disciplinary referrals for the students that were fighting, this was inadequate. He did, however, obtain emergency medical care for C.M., and notified the dispatch center of the Transportation Department of the fight and the fact that he was required to divert his route of travel to the fire station for medical care. Immediately, upon his return to the bus compound, Respondent completed and filed with his supervisor an Incident Report detailing the events on the bus that afternoon. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent violated the policies recited in the Petition as a., b., c., d., e., and f. Since Respondent commenced working for the District, he received one probationary and seven annual performance assessments. With the exception of his 2007-2008 performance assessment, Respondent always scored at an “Effective level of performance observed,” except one score of “Inconsistently practiced” in his 2003-2004 assessment for the area targeted of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Respondent’s supervisor consistently recommended him for reemployment, including the 2008-2009 school year. In his 2007-2008 annual performance assessment, Respondent received a score of “Effective level of performance observed” in 29 out of a total of 32 areas targeted for assessment. Respondent received two scores of “Inconsistently practiced” for the areas of “Reports to work as expected unless an absence has been authorized” and “Reports to work on time as determined by route schedules,” and one score of “Unacceptable level of performance observed” for the area of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Although the District’s performance assessment form provides that Criteria marked “I” or “U” require additional documentation, there was no evidence of any such documentation. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was disciplined on two occasions. Respondent was involved in a physical altercation with another employee in February of 2008 and as a result he was suspended for three days without pay. In addition, Respondent was suspended for an additional three days without pay for causing a disruption on another bus operator’s route. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent and dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employee based on the incident that occurred on May 16, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Julius Balogh, has been employed with Petitioner, Lee County School Board ("the District"), since October 17, 2002. He is currently assigned as a Bus Operator in the Transportation Department. Respondent's annual contract with Petitioner was renewed for each of the school years: 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. Since Respondent commenced working for Petitioner in October 2002, he has received five annual performance assessments. With the exception of Respondent's first year when he received three scores of "inconsistently practiced" out of 32 areas targeted for assessment, Respondent always scores at an "effective level of performance" in all areas targeted for assessment. The "comment" section for Petitioner's 06/07 performance assessment stated he was "a good worker, helpful, dependable and a joy to work with." On his 05/06 assessment, the assessor wrote in the "comments" section "Great job. Julius takes personal satisfaction in job and cares about his students. Continues to grow." During the five years Respondent has been employed with Petitioner, he has had a perfect attendance record. Aside from the present charges, he has never before been the subject of any disciplinary action. Respondent is an "educational support employee," as defined by Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statues (2007), and is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County ("SPALC"). The standard for the discipline of support personnel is "just cause," pursuant to Article 7 of the SPALC Agreement. On May 16, 2007, Respondent reported for duty at 4:49 a.m. He completed his morning shift at 10:07 a.m. He was then required to submit to a random drug and alcohol screening, which he passed. After dropping-off all students at their bus stops, Respondent was returning to the bus compound while following his regularly-scheduled route. While on duty and in uniform, Respondent parked his bus in front and entered the San Carlos Package Store. Respondent's stated reason for entering the store was for the intended purpose of purchasing an herbal extract product called St. Hubertus for his wife. St. Hubertus is an herbal product that Respondent's wife administers to herself daily, in her evening cup of tea, to alleviate digestive problems and stomach pain resulting from various medications she is prescribed. St. Hubertus is 35 percent alcohol by volume. Respondent and his wife regularly purchase St. Hubertus while visiting their country of origin, Hungary. Edith Balogh returns there annually for medical treatment. Edith Balogh's Hungarian physician first recommended St. Hubertus for her some 10 to 15 years ago to relieve her stomach pain. Edith Balogh had exhausted her annual supply of St. Hubertus sometime prior to May 2007. Although she and Respondent were scheduled to fly to Hungary on May 21, 2007, she was experiencing severe stomach pain and related symptoms. She, therefore, had asked her husband to attempt to procure the product locally. Respondent unsuccessfully sought to obtain the product at several stores prior to May 16, 2007. Ultimately, Respondent was told by a pharmacist that he might be able to find the product at the San Carlos Package Store. Since the San Carlos Package Store was located on Respondent's direct route to the bus compound, and because the weather was intemperate, Respondent did not want to backtrack after concluding his shift. Respondent decided to stop at the San Carlos Package Store for the purpose of purchasing the St. Hubertus product. Before stopping at the package store that day, Respondent had not used either of his two 15 minute breaks. He stopped at the store at approximately 6:45 p.m., clocked out of work at 7:17 p.m., and drove the approximately four miles from the store to the compound before clocking out. Respondent thus did not exceed the personal time Petitioner otherwise allowed its employees for their daily breaks. When Respondent inquired about the availability of St. Hubertus, the sales clerk advised him that he would have to order it and it would take three to six weeks to receive it. Respondent explained the urgency of obtaining the product, and the clerk recommended a similar product called "Jagermeifter." Respondent purchased two 50 ml bottles of Jagermeifter. The label on the bottles of Jagermeifter were in German and English. Respondent speaks German. The label described the product in German as "noble herb tea extract." The label also stated, in English, that the product contained 35 percent alcohol by volume (70 Proof). Respondent purchased the two bottles of Jagermeifter, placed them in a ziplock bag, secured them in his briefcase, and returned to his bus. Respondent then drove directly to the bus compound. As Respondent was pulling into the compound he received a cell phone call from the afternoon supervisor, Robert Schwartz, advising him that he was observed purchasing liquor and that he was suspended from operating the bus. Respondent clocked out and went home. Joe Howard, another supervisor, checked Respondent's bus for open alcohol containers the following day and found no such evidence. As had previously been approved, Respondent did not return to work prior to his departure for Europe. Respondent took the Jagermeifter product home with him on May 16, 2007, and presented it to his wife. Edith Balogh used the Jagermeifter as a substitute for St. Hubertus, and while it was not as effective as St. Hubertus, the Jagermeifter product did help to alleviate her stomach pain. Respondent testified that he believed he was purchasing a medicinal product, not an alcoholic beverage, when he bought the two small bottles of Jagermeifter. Respondent credibly explained that the reason he purchased the product was not for personal consumption, but for his wife's medicinal use. Respondent testified that he no longer consumes alcohol. Edith Balogh, Respondent's wife of 54 years, confirmed that Respondent does not drink alcohol and has not consumed any for approximately 45 years. Joe Howard's (Howard) testimony relating to Respondent's alleged admission that he would often purchase a "medicinal" product for his and his wife's consumption is not reliable. He did not make notes of the conversation, which occurred some eight months before the hearing. He offered conflicting testimony about who was present when the conversation occurred and was imprecise about whether Respondent admitted to regularly consuming Jagermeifter or whether he merely was admitting to intending to consume one of the bottles of the product purchased on May 16, 2007. Howard also failed to mention the alleged admission in the course of Petitioner's investigation. The greater weight of the evidence supports the testimony of Respondent and his wife that Respondent does not consume alcohol. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to believe that Respondent intended to consume any of the Jagermeifter himself. Although Respondent's motive for purchasing the Jagermeifter product was for a medicinal purpose to alleviate his wife's chronic stomach pain, the product was not sold in a drug store as an over-the-counter medicinal product. The product was marketed and sold as an "alcoholic beverage" in a package store. The words on the label, "noble herb tea extract," were only written in German. Respondent parked the school bus in front of the package store, entered the package store while in uniform, purchased an alcoholic beverage, took it back to his bus, and returned to the bus compound, all while on duty. Respondent's stated reason that he did not first return the bus, clock out, and then return to the package store in his own vehicle was because it was raining and he was in a hurry to get the product home to his wife, is unsatisfactory. Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired by purchasing the product while on duty and in uniform and returning with it on the bus to the compound. Respondent was in possession of alcohol under circumstances that would affect the efficient operation of the District's business or the safety of its employees and students or the public. Petitioner has adopted disciplinary guidelines for transportation employees. Under the facts of this case, the proper penalty for Respondent's misconduct in this case is disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that Petitioner, Lee County School Board enter a final order dismissing/terminating Respondent, Julius Balogh, from his position as an employee with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 March, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment contract due to repeated acts of harassment, gross insubordination, and violations of Petitioner's policies.
Findings Of Fact Until her last day of work on March 15, 2004, Respondent had worked for over 13 years at Stanley Switlik Elementary School (Switlik) in Marathon. Switlik is a public school. For most of her career with Petitioner, Respondent worked as an aid in the exceptional student education (ESE) prekindergarten program. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent worked as a 1:1 aid to a student in a varying exceptionalities class. At all material times, Respondent was classified as noncertified instructional staff. For at least the past couple of years, Respondent was dissatisfied by much of what took place around her at work and in the local education community. In the past two years, Respondent has filed complaints with three federal agencies (Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), two state agencies (Department of Education and Department of Children and Family Services), and one local agency (Petitioner). The 13 subjects of these complaints include two principals of Switlik, two superintendents of Monroe County Public Schools, various teachers and teacher aids, and a relative of her husband. The record discloses no basis for finding any merit whatsoever in any of these complaints. In June 2002, Respondent walked into a classroom at the Grace Jones Day Care Center, which is a not-for-profit school in Respondent’s neighborhood, and entered a class with sleeping preschool children. Respondent approached the new director of Grace Jones and confronted her about the school's curriculum. The bewildered director spoke to Respondent for a few moments before realizing that Respondent had no children at the school. In the ensuing weeks, Respondent continued to challenge the director about the school’s curriculum, warning her that she needed to change the curriculum or Respondent would shut down the school. One time, Respondent warned the director that “you better watch your white ass.” Seeing the director smoking a cigarette on school grounds during breaks, Respondent began videotaping the director from the street to document what Respondent viewed as illegal behavior. The purpose of Respondent’s actions is unclear, but does not seem to have been the betterment of the educational program at Grace Jones. When children in the custody of a relative of her husband attended Grace Jones, Respondent never volunteered to help at the school. However unclear the purpose of Respondent’s actions, their effect was to frighten the director, the teachers, and the students and disrupt the educational process at the school. The director eventually obtained a judicial order prohibiting Respondent from trespassing onto the Grace Jones grounds. Respondent repeatedly involved herself with the education of the two children who were in the custody of a relative of Respondent's husband. When one of the children was later attending Switlik, while Respondent was employed at the school, Respondent telephoned the child’s guardian and informed her that the child had been misbehaving in school. When the guardian called the principal, the principal stated that the child had not been misbehaving. Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion directly to the child’s guardian. Later, in January 2004, Respondent informed the guardian and the guardian’s sister, who is the biological mother of the children, that Switlik was failing one of the children. Again, Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion. Despite receiving a warning from the principal not to disclose confidential student information, Respondent continued to try to obtain educational information about these children, even though she had no right to such information. Frustrated that the guardian would not remove one or both of the children from Switlik, Respondent threatened to call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use. Although she may never have followed through on this threat, she did call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the children’s biological mother was residing with them and the guardian, evidently in violation of some sort of prohibition against this living arrangement. The record permits no findings as to whether the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use or the biological mother was residing with her children and the guardian, but the record permits the finding that, in both cases, the intention of Respondent in threatening to call or calling the authorities was not to correct an intolerable situation, but was to coerce the guardian to accede to Respondent's demands. While employed at Switlik, Respondent had numerous confrontations with numerous employees, including superiors. Two of the more prominent confrontations involved Respondent’s confrontation with a school bus driver, who occupied a managerial role at Switlik as to transportation, and two aids, who worked in a Head Start prekindergarten classroom at Switlik. These incidents occurred during the 2002-03 school year. The problem with the school bus driver began in 2002. Escorting one or more children to or from the school buses, as was her responsibility, Respondent entered a bus loaded with children and began directing them to sit down. When the bus driver, who was on the bus, told Respondent to leave the bus, Respondent angrily accused the bus driver of failing to discharge her duty to protect the safety of the children. After receiving complaints from the driver about Respondent and from Respondent about the driver and the students standing in the bus, the principal met with Respondent and told her not to interfere with the bus driver and her supervision of the students already on the bus. Despite the warning, Respondent later engaged in a nearly identical confrontation during the 2002-03 school year. When the principal sided again with the bus driver, Respondent demanded a meeting with the superintendent to discuss her problems with the bus driver and, now, the principal. Ignored by the superintendent, Respondent contacted a school board member and asked for a meeting. Obtaining no satisfaction from the school board member, Respondent contacted the United States Department of Education, Civil Rights Office, and Florida Department of Education with her complaints about the bus driver and the refusal of Petitioner's representatives to resolve the situation. The problem with the Head Start aids initially involved their choice of classroom attire. They wore shorts, which Respondent considered to be cut too short. Possibly arising out of Respondent's frustration at not being allowed to wear a head scarf at school, Respondent complained to the principal that the two women were allowed to wear shorts. A picture of the shorts revealed that they were not suggestive or inappropriate in length or style. To the contrary, shorts permitted the aids to perform the physical activity imposed upon them in working with young children. After Respondent complained about the aids' shorts, the aids began to lock the classroom door to prevent Respondent from taking a short-cut through the room when students were present. Respondent complained about this, but, again, the principal sided with the aids and directed Respondent to stop cutting through the occupied classroom--a directive that Respondent repeatedly ignored. Twice bested by the aids, Respondent pressed her complaints about them to higher authorities. Respondent informed the Monroe County director of Head Start of the problem. When the county director referred Respondent back to the principal, Respondent threatened to contact the Southeast Director of Head Start in Atlanta and government representatives in Washington. On October 8, 2003, the principal and other of Respondent's employees, including the Human Relations Director, participated in a meeting requested by Respondent to discuss her concerns about events that had taken place at Switlik over a period of time. At some point, the principal warned Respondent about her disruption of the school environment and her confrontational behavior. The principal warned that Respondent's unprofessional behavior would lead to termination. Respondent became belligerent and loudly denounced the Human Relations Director as a liar. Two days later, Respondent refused to sign a memorandum outlining what had taken place at the meeting. The above incidents are largely drawn from Respondent's testimony. However, there were numerous other confrontations, such as with an office manager who asked that Respondent wait a moment before the woman could get her paycheck or repeated abuse of school email to hector Petitioner's employees. There were also numerous other examples of insubordination, such as Respondent's refusal to sign a statement acknowledging Petitioner's anti-harassment policy and her refusal to sign her evaluation at the end of the 2002-03 school year, which warned that her noncompliance with Petitioner's policies was disrupting school operations. Dissatisfied with the resolution of all of these matters, Respondent also filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about at least some of them. Two principals over several years have tried patiently to counsel Respondent regarding her strident, uncooperative behavior. At meetings, Respondent routinely took the offensive, yelling and denouncing the participants by, among other things, claiming that the current principal was not doing her job. An endless pattern of complaints about problems perceived by no one but Respondent preceded complaints about never-commenced or incorrectly resolved investigations. The disruption upon the educational process was evident and substantial. Respondent has not been chastened by less severe job actions than termination. When Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days from April 30 to May 2, 2003, Respondent's response, upon her return to work, was to file a complaint about the principal and, after a month of inaction on her complaint, to email the superintendent and demand to know the status of his investigation of her complaint. Failing to obtain a satisfactory response from the superintendent, Respondent submitted complaints about the principal and superintendent to the Florida Department of Education. Finally, on August 14, 2003, Respondent emailed the School Board members and asked for a meeting about this problem. By undated letter in February or March 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised Respondent that she was suspended with pay until the School Board meeting of April 1, 2004, at which he would recommend termination. The letter states that Respondent has violated Sections 1012.27(5) and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, The Code of Ethics for Education Professionals, and Petitioner's policies 6.37, 6.38, 2.70, 3.40, and 5.70. By letter dated March 22, 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised that he would recommend at the April 1 School Board meeting that it convert Respondent's suspension with pay to a suspension without pay, pending final action on his recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment. Petitioner's policy 6.37 provides that Petitioner's superintendent may suspend an employee until the next meeting of the School Board. The policy provides a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to any employee who has a property interest in his or her job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John Padget, Superintendent Monroe County School Board Post Office Box 1788 Key West, Florida 33041-1788 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Scott E. Siverson Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Scott C. Black Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Kasha Brunson, and whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Maria Colina.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brunson has been employed by the School District since August 20, 1996. She is currently a bus attendant in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Brunson has had excellent performance evaluations. Ms. Colina has been employed by the School District since February 9, 2000. She is currently a bus operator in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Colina has had excellent performance evaluations. Both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPLAC) and the School Board. Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides: "Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause." The SPLAC agreement does not specifically define just cause, but Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides that allegations of misconduct and poor job performance, which could result in suspension without pay or termination of employment, could be investigated, and a recommendation for discipline could be made to the superintendent as a result of the investigation. Provision 7.11 of the SPLAC agreement provides: [D]isciplinary action(s) taken against SPLAC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the provisions of 7.10 of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Colina was the bus operator, and Ms. Brunson was the bus attendant on Bus 134. The bus was assigned to pick up exceptional education students on its morning route to East Lee County High School (East Lee County). The bus has approximately six rows of seats. On December 7, 2010, the bus had two stops for East Lee County and picked up students C.E., a female, and T.T., a male, for delivery to East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. are tenth-grade students; however, they are mentally delayed and function between a fourth and sixth-grade level. In late October 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been advised to keep C.E. and T.T. separated. The students were not to speak to one another, and they were not to sit together. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were not told the reason why they were to keep the students separated, and they both assumed the students had been involved in an argument. On December 7, 2010, the bus arrived at East Lee County approximately 15 minutes prior to the bell ringing. Ms. Brunson, Ms. Colina, and the two students remained on the bus while waiting for the school to open. T.T. was seated in a seat at the rear of the bus across from Ms. Brunson. C.E. was in a seat at the front of the bus directly behind Ms. Colina, five rows in front of Ms. Brunson. T.T. asked Ms. Brunson for permission to change the radio station. She gave permission, and T.T. got up and walked to the front of the bus where he changed the station on the on-board radio. In order to change the radio station, he had to reach across Ms. Colina. Instead of returning to his assigned seat, T.T. sat down next to C.E. in her seat. Neither Ms. Brunson nor Ms. Colina saw T.T. sit next to C.E. At some point, Ms. Brunson observed T.T. in the seat with C.E. She felt that something inappropriate was happening, and she called T.T. back to his seat. Ms. Brunson reported the incident to Dale Maybin (Mr. Maybin), her supervisor for that day, as soon as C.E. and T.T. left the bus. Later in the morning, she also advised Shannan Pugh (Ms. Pugh), who was the paraprofessional who was supervising C.E. and T.T. at their work site. She told Ms. Pugh that, when T.T. stood up from C.E.'s seat, she saw C.E.'s head "pop up." In addition to the East Lee County delivery, Bus 134 was assigned to a route for students at Manatee Elementary School (Manatee). The Manatee route began after the completion of the East Lee County route. On the morning of December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been assigned two additional students to the Manatee route beginning on December 9, 2010. At the time of the incident involving T.T. and C.E., both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina claim that they were doing paperwork related to the assignment of two new students. Bus drivers are given 15 minutes each morning and 15 minutes each afternoon to do a pre-trip inspection and to do paperwork. The paperwork involved in adding the two students to the bus route was minimal. The students' names would be added to the seating chart, and the students' names and I.D. numbers would be added to a Medicaid form. Once the bus arrived at Manatee where the students were to be delivered, the driver would receive additional information from the school and fill out a TR-1 form and get an emergency information card, which was to be placed in the bus. At the time of the incident on December 7, 2010, the only paperwork that needed to be done would be to add the names of the new students to the seating chart and to place the students' names and I.D. numbers on the Medicaid form. Although Ms. Colina had the responsibility of completing the paperwork, she and Ms. Brunson divided the paperwork. The longest time that it should have taken each person to do the paperwork was a couple of minutes. Respondents claim that they were unable to adequately supervise the students because of attending to paperwork is not credible. The amount of time that it would have taken to do the paperwork was minimal and should not have precluded Respondents from keeping an eye on the students. Additionally, Respondents should not have been doing their paperwork at the same time. Obviously, if both Respondents are doing paperwork at the same time, no one is watching the students. Because Respondents were doing paperwork does not relieve them of the responsibility of adequately supervising the students and keeping the students separated. The reason that C.E. and T.T. were separated stemmed from an incident in October 2010, when C.E. and T.T. had engaged in inappropriate activity during a work study program. C.E., T.T., and five other students were assigned to work off-campus at a grocery store. The students were supervised by two paraprofessionals from East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. left the area in the grocery store where they were assigned and went into the men's restroom together. C.E. admitted having sexual contact with T.T. while in the men's restroom. School officials changed the classroom and work study schedules of the two students to eliminate contact between the students. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were aware that C.E. and T.T. no longer went to the work site on the same days. No disciplinary actions were taken against the two paraprofessionals as a result of the incident at the grocery store. From late October 2010 to December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina kept C.E. and T.T. separated while on the bus, and the students did not engage in any inappropriate contact on the bus until the incident at issue. Respondents claim that they would have been more diligent in supervising the students if they had known that the reason that the students were being separated was for previous sexual misconduct. This reasoning for failure to adequately supervise is no excuse. Respondents should have adhered to their charge of keeping the students separated no matter the reason for the students being separated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that there is just cause to discipline Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina and suspending Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina without pay from March 8, 2011, to January 1, 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of the Respondent, a school bus operator.
Findings Of Fact Luis R. Rosario (Respondent) is a school bus operator employed by the Lee County School District (District). The Respondent has been employed as a bus operator since August 1994. The Respondent's performance evaluations have been acceptable. The sole exception was noted in his 1996-1997 evaluation, which found that he needed to improve in the category identified as "uses appropriate techniques in maintaining order among students on the bus." The subsequent evaluations do not indicate that the issue continued to be a concern after the 1996-1997 evaluation period. On February 28, 2000, the Respondent was transporting students to and from Trafalgar Middle School. In the afternoon of February 28, a student identified for purposes of this order as D.M. attempted to board the bus in the afternoon. D.M. was not a regular passenger on the Respondent's bus. According to District policy, in order for a student to ride a bus other than his or her assigned bus, a student must have a note signed by a parent and approved by an authorized school administrator. Some schools, including Trafalgar Middle School, use a system of bus passes to control bus ridership. When D.M. boarded the Respondent's bus on the afternoon of February 28, 2000, he did not have a bus pass or a note from a parent. According to the Respondent, D.M. has friends on his bus and has made prior attempts to board the bus without a pass or a note. D.M. supposedly told the Respondent that he had given him the note and had ridden the bus to Trafalgar Middle School on the morning of February 28. The Respondent did not recall having D.M. on the bus that morning and did not recall receiving any note from him. The Respondent refused to permit D.M. to board the bus. There is no evidence that D.M. provided a note or a bus pass to the Respondent on February 28. When the Respondent refused to permit D.M. to board the bus, D.M. became argumentative and hostile towards the Respondent. The Respondent argued with D.M. D.M. left the bus, spoke to a school resource officer, and then returned to the bus with the school principal, Joseph Vetter. Mr. Vetter and the Respondent became involved in a discussion regarding whether D.M. should be permitted to ride the bus. Mr. Vetter was unhappy with the Respondent's behavior towards D.M. and towards himself. Mr. Vetter testified that the Respondent was "yelling" at D.M. and at the principal, and was "rude" and "disrespectful." During the interaction between the principal and the Respondent, D.M. continued to act in a disruptive manner. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's behavior towards D.M. was inappropriate. The principal testified that the Respondent's rudeness and abusiveness reached a level that the principal had never previously experienced during his lifetime, yet the principal was specifically able only to recall that the Respondent repeatedly stated that D.M. did not belong on his bus. There is no evidence that the Respondent cursed in the presence of the principal or D.M. Although the Respondent may have raised his voice towards D.M. and the principal, the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's behavior towards D.M. was so inappropriate as to warrant a verbal reprimand by the principal in front of the Respondent's passengers. Mr. Vetter left the bus and told the Respondent that he would be contacting the Respondent's supervisor. The Respondent, apparently dissatisfied with the result of the interaction, followed the principal off the bus and briefly continued to argue before returning to the bus and leaving the campus. The District asserts that, as the bus left the school's bus boarding area, the Respondent cursed at the principal. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The District presented the testimony of several students in support of the assertion. The testimony of the students lacks sufficient precision to establish that the Respondent cursed at the principal. The students offered contradictory testimony about where they were seated on the bus and what words they actually heard the Respondent speak. Further, an investigator for the District interviewed several students after the incident occurred. The investigator prepared typewritten statements, allegedly based on what the students told him, and provided them to Trafalgar Middle School officials. The Trafalgar Middle School officials presented the statements to the students and told them to sign the statements. The students did not read the statements before they signed them. The written statements prepared by the District's investigator contain substantial derogatory information about the Respondent. According to the students who signed the statements, much of the information contained therein is false. At the hearing, the students who signed the prepared statements denied providing the false information to the investigator. The Petition for Suspension in this case alleges that the Principal of Trafalgar Middle School intervened in an altercation between D.M. and the Respondent after viewing the Respondent screaming at D.M. The evidence establishes that the principal became involved after D.M., failing to gain entry onto the Respondent's bus, found the principal and brought him to the bus. The Petition alleges that the Respondent yelled profanity directed towards the principal as he drove away in the bus and that the profanity continued during the bus ride. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent yelled any profanity at all. Other than as set forth herein, there is no credible evidence that any use of profanity continued throughout the bus ride. The Petition alleges that some students in the bus were fearful of the Respondent's behavior and his use of profanity. There is no evidence that on February 28, 2000, the students feared the Respondent in any manner. The Petition alleges that the Respondent made threatening statements suggesting bodily harm to some students and to the principal. There is no evidence that the Respondent threatened bodily harm towards any person whatsoever. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, following the argument with the principal, and the principal's threat to call the driver's supervisor, the Respondent mumbled to himself that he did not need "this damn job" as he pulled his bus away from the Trafalgar Middle School boarding area. There was testimony from some students that they had heard the Respondent say "hell" or "damn" previously, but the testimony was insufficient to establish with specificity the circumstances of the reported events. The Respondent has been disciplined previously for accusations similar to those involved in the instant case. In May 1999, the Respondent received a written warning regarding use of profanity and improper behavior towards a student at Gulf Middle School. The evidence establishes that the Respondent reacted inappropriately when confronted with the alleged May 1999 allegations. When District officials attempted to address the situation, the Respondent became agitated and aggressive towards the people in the room. The written warning was issued to address the matter. There was no evidence presented in the instant case to establish the alleged use of profanity in May 1999. The District offered testimony related to an incident in January 1999, at Diplomat Middle School where the Respondent was accused of yelling at the school's assistant principal as the bus drove away. The evidence fails to establish specifically what the Respondent was yelling at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Benefits Pending Termination of Employment dated April 14, 2000, and providing an award of back pay and benefits to the Respondent retroactive to the date of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor M. Arias, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bruce Harter, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against her. If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent Respondent has been employed by the School Board since May of 1984. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. For the duration of her employment with the School Board, Respondent has held a school bus aide position and been assigned to the School Board's South Regional Transportation Center (Center), the director of which, since May of 1994, has been Patricia Snell. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was scheduled to work a total of six hours a day: three hours in the morning (morning shift) and three hours in the afternoon (afternoon shift). (In between the morning and afternoon shifts, she was off duty for several hours.) The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a school bus aide employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. 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, 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: selection and promotion of employees; separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and the lines of administrative authority of DCPS. 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; Contract out for goods or services; and, 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. Article IX, Section 13, of the AFSCME Contract addresses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME 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 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 IX, Section 14F, of the AFSCME Contract essentially recites the provisions of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.05, which is the School Board's "Drug Free Work Place General Policy Statement." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: DCPS [Dade County Public Schools] and AFSCME recognize that substance abuse in our nation and our community exacts staggering costs in both human and economic terms. Substance abuse can be reasonably expected to produce impaired job performance, lost productivity, absenteeism, accidents, wasted materials, lowered morale, rising health care costs, and diminished interpersonal relationship skills. DCPS and AFSCME share a commitment to solve this problem and to create and maintain a drug-free work place. DCPS is responsible for the instruction and well-being of the students entrusted to its care. A consistent message needs to be communicated to DCPS students: the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of alcohol, and the misuse of prescription drugs is unacceptable. Policy Objectives To promote a healthy, safe working and learning environment; To seek the rehabilitation of employees with a self-admitted or detected substance abuse problem; To eliminate substance abuse problems in the work place; To provide a consistent model of substance-free behavior for students; To provide a clear standard of conduct for DCPS employees; and To hire drug-free employees. Policy Statement- Illegal Drugs Drug abuse by employees interferes with the educational and work process and compromises the safety and well-being of staff and students. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions: a. Employees on duty or on School Board property will not manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, or use illegal drugs, nor will they be under the influence of such drugs. . . . Policy Statement- Alcohol and Prescription Drugs Alcohol, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs are legal and readily available. Generally safe and acceptable, these drugs, when abused over time or used in combination with one another, can result in chemical dependency or poly-drug addiction. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions: Employees on duty or on School Board property will be free of intoxication from alcohol. Employees in safety-sensitive positions, as defined herein, will be free of measurable alcohol concentrations. Further, employees will not manufacture or use alcoholic beverages while on School Board property or on duty. . . . Policy Statement- Employee Physical Examination/Screening Health Services Drug screening will be included in all physical examinations; existing employees and contracted persons in covered positions will be screened under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991, and as required under existing labor contracts, statutes, State Board Rules, and Dade County Public Schools Board Rules. Circumstances under which testing may be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: observed use of illegal drugs and/or abuse of alcohol during work hours; apparent physical state of impairment of motor functions; marked changes in personal behavior on the job not attributable to other factors; . . . Drug and/or alcohol screening shall be conducted by Board approved, independent, certified laboratories utilizing recognized techniques and procedures as described in the DCPS Drug-Free Work Place Technical Guide, which is incorporated by reference into this Contract, and made a part thereof. The protocol for drug screening shall include a split sample and chemical immunoassay screening procedure. In the event initial test results are screened positive, such results will be confirmed and verified by the Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Test. Medical records and information relating directly thereto will be maintained in strict confidentiality. Any laboratory contract shall provide that the contractor's records are to be kept confidential under provisions of Florida laws. DCPS shall establish a system of maintaining records to include both the district's and the contractor's record of applicant and employee urinalysis and blood alcohol results. The contract and the record maintenance system must have specific provisions that require that employee records are maintained and used with the highest regard for employee privacy consistent with Florida's Public Records Act and the purpose of achieving a drug-free work place. DCPS recognizes that chemical dependency is an illness that can be successfully treated. It is the policy of DCPS, where possible, to seek rehabilitation of employees with a self-admitted or detected drug problem. Disciplinary action may be instituted against employees who the Board believes will not be assisted by rehabilitation or who have negatively impacted students and/or staff. Employees who have previously been referred for assistance or employees unwilling or unable to rehabilitate may be subject to appropriate action, pursuant to School Board policy, applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Rules, Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991, and applicable provisions of collective bargaining agreements. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows: A. 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: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); and, Conference-for-the-Record. Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation. 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 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, 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 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. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification 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." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. 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. 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. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for Suspension." 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 is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 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 up to 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. . . . According to Article V, Section 18, of the AFSCME Contract, the term "workday," as used in the agreement, means "the total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties." The definition of "unauthorized absence," as used in the AFSCME Contract, is found in Article V, Section 27, thereof, which provides as follows: 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. The School Board's Rules As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including the aforementioned School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.05, as well as School Board Rules 6Gx13-3E-1.10, 6Gx13-4-1.06 , 6Gx13- 4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-4E-1.011.2 School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10 School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10 incorporates by reference the provisions of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual (Manual), including those set forth below, of which Respondent was timely made aware. Section 4 of the Manual describes "school bus aide responsibilities" and provides as follows: There is no requirement in either the law or the regulations that require the assignment of school bus aides to school buses. Dade County however, has elected to assign aides to some but not all of its school bus routes. Aides are not automatically placed on a bus because it is carrying exceptional education students. School bus aides are assigned to act as attendants on the school bus with the primary duty of maintaining order on the bus to allow the driver to give full attention to driving. Under the direction of the driver the aide works with children, school staff and parents in loading and unloading operations and in seeing to the needs of exceptional education students. The work of the aide must allow the driver to devote full time and attention to the safe operation of the vehicle. The aide must understand that the driver is in charge of the bus and is responsible for its safe operation. School Bus Aide responsibilities are: Bus aides must be clean and neat in appearance at all times (in prescribed uniform while on duty), must not use profane language, nor be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, nor use tobacco in the presence of students. Bus aides must abide by all safety rules and regulations which pertain to drivers but which do not relate specifically to driving tasks. Bus aides must be familiar with the rules of student conduct in order to assist in student behavior management and should have a working knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the various categories of exceptional children. The aide shall prepare and maintain an accurate seating plan. Bus aides should be familiar with the use and location of all safety or emergency equipment (e.g., first aid kit, fire extinguisher, reflector) and should assist the driver in using this equipment should the need arise. The school bus aide must understand and learn how to assist the driver should it become necessary to evacuate the bus in an emergency. In dealing with physically handicapped students, bus aides will assume primary responsibility for loading and unloading students, must be familiar with the operation of wheelchair lifts and use of restraining devices and other equipment used in the transportation of the handicapped. Additionally, bus aides must ensure that wheelchairs are properly attached to their tie-down devices, and that use of such devices is consistent with the specification requirements as determined by the year of the school bus. The school bus aide should assist the driver in preparing reports, checking the working condition of safety equipment, and performing routine cleaning jobs. The bus aide and driver must have a good working relationship. The school bus aide should become familiar with the route, with the loading and unloading procedures, and be attentive to the location of the bus at all times along the route. The aide should be able to guide a substitute driver when this becomes necessary. The school bus aide shall render first aid, if necessary, to the limits of his/her training and abilities, and seek prompt aid by the best possible means available. This assistance shall be limited to that which may be normally expected of a reasonably prudent person. The school bus aide shall check under every bus bench at the end of every run. The school bus aide shall sit with or behind the last student on the bus in order to observe and monitor all the students on the bus. As a reading of Section 4 of the Manual reveals, the duties of a school bus aide are safety-sensitive and involve direct contact with students. Section 9 of the Manual describes the Department's "attendance policy" and provides as follows: ATTENDANCE RESPONSIBILITES School bus driver/aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all work days in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule or contract. ABSENCES, AUTHORIZED For absences to be authorized, they must be reported to the driver's/aide's Transportation Center Dispatch Office in advance. This notice shall be made at the earliest possible time but not later than prior to the next scheduled report time. Even in an emergency every possible effort must be made to inform the Dispatcher. The supervisory staff evaluates the driver's adherence to this rule. Intent to return should be treated in the same manner. Proper forms shall be completed promptly for payroll purposes. ABSENCES, UNAUTHORIZED Unauthorized absences are subject to disciplinary action as prescribed under existing labor contracts. If a driver/aide does not report to work fifteen (15) minutes after the scheduled report time, or does not call in absent before their report time, the absence will be considered unauthorized. If time off is taken during a regular working school day without a supervisor's approval, this absence may also be considered unauthorized. NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCE Drivers/aides must notify their Transportation Center's Dispatch Office as soon as they have determined they cannot report to work. Do not make arrangements on your own for a substitute! All arrangements must be made by the Dispatch Office. If you will not be reporting for work on regular school days, call in immediately. Speak with the Dispatcher, or your Field Operations Specialist. If you cannot report to work because of an emergency situation, contact the Dispatch office as soon as you possibly can. If the situation requires you to leave the area, have a relative or friend contact the office in your place. If your absence will occur sometime in the future, give the Dispatch Office as much advance notification as possible. When you contact the dispatch office, explain the reason for your absence, how long you will be off, and the estimated date of your return. If you will be off work for more than one (1) day, you must contact the office each day, prior to your report time, with a complete update of the situation. The only times you do not have to contact the office on a daily basis are as follows: Admission to a hospital as a patient. Maternity leave A doctor's work release for a specified number of days Extended sick leave Approved leave of absence If you are out of town CHECK-IN POLICY All employees are expected to arrive at work on or before their scheduled report time. Drivers/aides will be given a five (5) minute grace period to report to work, during which no disciplinary or financial action will be taken. For example, if you are scheduled to report for work at 6:00 a.m., as long as you sign-in by 6:05 a.m. you will be allowed to go out on your assigned route, with no repercussions. Drivers/aides who report to work 6-15 minutes after their scheduled report time will be considered "tardy." Tardy drivers/aides will be permitted to work. However, the Dispatch Office may assign a stand-by or substitute driver/aide to the route of the tardy driver/aide. Driver/Aides more than 10 minutes late, but less than 16 minutes late, will be used as substitute drivers/aides and not allowed to drive their route. A record will be kept of the amount of time the employee was late. Lost time will be accumulated, and employees will be docked pay in 1/2 day increments. Drivers/aides who report to work 16 or more minutes after their scheduled report time will be considered "absent without leave" (AWOL). These persons will not be permitted to work. They will be placed on unauthorized leave-without pay (ULWOP) and shall be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the AFSCME Contract. Extenuating circumstances will be evaluated by the Center Director, and upon proper documentation, may not be held against the employee. Repeated occurrences, such as "car broke down for the third time this week," will not be considered extenuating. PAPERWORK It is the driver's/aide's responsibility to report to the supervisor to complete and/or produce all required paperwork related to their absence on the first workday upon their return to work. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in an unauthorized absence regardless of extenuating circumstances. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06 School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06 is the School Board's "tobacco-free work place" rule. It provides, in pertinent part, that, as of September 1, 1989, the "[u]se of tobacco products is not permitted . . . on school buses." School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 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 Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves 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. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011 School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011 addresses the subject of "absences and leaves" and provides as follows: No leave shall be granted for any reason without prior approval of the Superintendent of Schools except leave occasioned by sudden illness or emergency. Any employee who is absent for other than reasons of sudden illness, emergency, or without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. The Center's Check-In Procedures In August of 1994, a few months after she assumed her position as the director of the Center, Patricia Snell sent the following memorandum concerning "check-in procedures" to all of the school bus drivers and school aides assigned to the Center: All drivers and aides must pick-up their bus keys or tag from the key board in the Dispatch office. This is the method of checking in for your shift. If you do not check in, your route will be given to a substitute driver and you will be considered NO CALL/NO SHOW for that shift. All drivers and aides must return their keys and tags to the key board immediately after each shift. Dispatch will have a list of field trips and those drivers and aides will then turn their keys and tags in the slot in the dispatch office if after hours. If there is a problem with your bus, turn in bus keys with the D.R.R. to Dispatch. If you are assigned a spare, then the spare bus keys will be placed on your assigned key hook prior to your shift. Your regularly assigned bus will not be returned until your assigned spare bus is fueled, swept, trash is emptied, windows up and parked in the proper parking space. You need not sign in. The Office Helpers and Dispatchers will keep track of your arrival times by use of the key board. The Tardy Policy will be strictly enforced. Employees who are 6-15 minutes late These employees are "late" or "tardy" and appropriate progressive discipline will be initiated. Such employees will be permitted to work their shift. Employees who are 16 or more minutes late These employees are recorded as "unauthorized leave without pay" and are not permitted to work that shift. Appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated. Respondent received her copy of this memorandum on August 25, 1994. Previous (Pre 1994-1995 School Year) Warnings Given Respondent Regarding Attendance and Leave Unauthorized leave was a subject with which Respondent should have been familiar at the time she received Snell's memorandum inasmuch as Respondent had received disciplinary warnings from her supervisors concerning the matter in the past. For instance, on February 11, 1988, she had received a memorandum (dated February 3, 1988) from Jack Schee, the then- director of the Center, which read as follows: While signing the payroll on January 29, 1988, I became very disappointed to discover that you had already started the new fiscal year with unauthorized leave without pay. This carefree, unresponsible attitude has got to change. The department, and more specifically your co-workers, count on your presence daily to accomplish our mission to provide the students of the Dade County schools with whatever is necessary to enhance their education. All employees in the Department of Transportation are being monitored for poor attendance and unauthorized leave without pay. In order to improve attendance, I am prepared to follow-through with any necessary action, such as conferences or suspensions, as the situation merits. Our records indicate that this is your 1[st] unauthorized absence. Per AFSCME Contract, Article XII, Section I, item D, states: "An unauthorized absence for three consecutive work days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more work days during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination." In addition, Respondent had received written Operational Reminders for unauthorized absences on July 6, 1988, and September 5 and 7, 1989. Furthermore, on May 10, 1990, Schee had held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's attendance record. Schee subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. Schee's memorandum read as follows: A conference-for-the-record was held in my office on May 10, 1990 to discuss the attendance record of Ms. Jennifer Gardner, bus aide. In attendance at this conference were Ms. Gardner, Ms. Karen Crapps, route manager, and myself. Ms. Gardner stated that she did not want to have a representative present at the conference after I explained that she had the right to representation. I explained that on numerous occasions, the most recent being May 4, 1990, Ms. Gardner had failed to report to work and did not call the office to inform us of her absence. In addition, on May 4, 1990 Ms. Gardner reported to work thirty-five minutes late and missed her work assignment. On May 8, 1990, her assigned driver, Ms. Helen Spence, informed the office that Ms. Gardner reported to work on May 7, 1990[,] but that she fell asleep during most of her Southwood run. Ms. Gardner then stated that she had no comment to make concerning her attendance record. She stated that she did fall asleep on the bus but did not sleep the entire Southwood run. I concluded the conference by stating that her attendance record would be closely monitored and that if improvement was not made stronger disciplinary action would follow. I also informed Ms. Gardner that she would receive a memorandum of understanding concerning her attendance. The "memorandum of understanding" to which Schee referred was received by Respondent on May 16, 1990. It read as follows: On May 10, 1990 we held a conference-for-the- record concerning your attendance on the job and your failure to inform the office when you are not coming to work. I expressed the fact that I was extremely disappointed that your attendance has not improved since we have discussed this problem many times before. I then explained to you that if you continue to fail to report to work and do not inform the office then I would forced to request more serious disciplinary action. By way of this memorandum I am instructing you to inform the office at least 30 minutes before your reporting time on any occasion in which you cannot come to work. I am also instructing you that you will not be allowed to report to work late and expect to be paid for that time. If your performance does not improve I cannot guarantee your employment for summer school session. As acknowledgment that you have received this memorandum, and understand it, please sign below and return to me. A copy is provided for your purpose. Respondent had also received written Operational Reminders for unauthorized absences on May 6, 7 and 8, 1991. On May 15, 1991, she received a memorandum (dated May 9, 1991) from Schee concerning these unauthorized absences. The memorandum read as follows: During the payroll period ending May 9, 1991, you chose to take Unauthorized Leave Without Pay on May 6, 7 and 8th. You are professionally accountable to report to work on time and/or call the operations office no less than one-half hour prior to your check- in time, to inform them of your absence. Failure to call within the prescribed time constitutes Unauthorized Leave Without Pay. The attendance of all employees in our department is monitored daily. In order to improve attendance, I am prepared to follow through with any necessary action, such as a conference-for-the-record or suspension, as the situation merits. Our records indicate that this is your 3rd unauthorized absence. Per AFSCME Contract: Article XI, Section I, item D, states: "An unauthorized absence for three consecutive work days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totalling ten or more working days during the previous twelve-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination." Warnings Given Respondent Regarding Attendance and Leave During the 1994-1995 School Year On November 16, 1994, Respondent received a written Contact Report from the Center's coordinator, Wynona Sleeth, concerning Respondent's unauthorized absences, in which the following "reason for contact" was given: Six half days NCNS [No Call/No Show]. One whole [day] unauthorized. Any day you do not have time available is unauthorized. Any time you call in after due time is NCNS. Sleeth subsequently, on or about December 21, 1994, provided Respondent with the following Letter of Deficiency: This is to inform you that you have accumulated 17 Absences Tardies NC/NS 9 ULWP [unauthorized leave without pay] since 8-29-94. I am reminding you that 3 consecutive days of ULWP constitutes abandonment of position and may be subject to a recommendation for disciplinary action not excluding suspension and/or termination. An accumulation of 10 or more days of ULWP may warrant a recommendation for termination. Your job performance is important to us and we would like to assist you to improve. If you need assistance, please come to the operations office to discuss this matter. On May 11, 1995, Snell and Sleeth held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent concerning Respondent's attendance record. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on May 17, 1995, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: A Conference-for-the-Record was held in my office on May 11, 1995. Yourself, Ms. Wynona Sleeth, Coordinator and this administrator were present. The conference was held to discuss your attendance to date. You had notification of [your] right to union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed by the District since May 2, 1984. You were reminded of memos you had received and signed notifying you of this school year's absenteeism. A calendar highlighting the days you were absent was explained to you and you were given a copy of Article XI, Section 1(D) of the union contract. You were asked if you needed the Employee Assistance Program. You replied that you did not need it. I then read the [written absence from] worksite directive to you and what you were required to do from this point on and that non-compliance could lead to further disciplinary measures up to and including suspensions or termination. Respondent had received a copy of the "[written absence from] worksite directive" the day of the conference-for-the- record. It read as follows: Please be advised that you have been absent forty-four days (44) days from the worksite during the 1994/95 school year. Since your absence from duties adversely affects the effective operation of this worksite, you are apprised of the following procedures concerning future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to this administrator or the administrator on duty before your assigned shift. Absence for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to this administrator upon your return to the site. These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to maintain effective worksite operations. Please be assured that assistance will continue to be provided to facilitate your regular attendance. Non-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and could lead to further disciplinary action up to and including suspensions or termination. No "disciplinary action" (as that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) was taken against Respondent during the 1994-1995 school year notwithstanding her poor attendance record that year, which included unauthorized absences on the following 26 days: August 30, 1994; September 28, 1994; October 19, 20, 26 and 31, 1994; November 2, 10 and 28, 1994; December 22, 1994; January 25, 1995; February 8, 9, 14 and 16, 1995; March 7, 10 and 22, 1995; April 17, 26 and 28, 1995; May 1, 3, 17 and 26, 1995; and June 5, 1995.3 Respondent was offered a contract for the following school year and she accepted the offer. The 1995-1996 School Year On October 2, 1995, Respondent received a written Contact Report from Sleeth concerning Respondent's unauthorized absences, in which the following "reason for contact" was given: You had 9 hours of unauthorized absences for the pay period 8/25-9/7/95. You need to work on having a good attendance record. On October 18, 1995, Snell observed Respondent smoking a cigarette on a school bus. Respondent knew or should have known that such conduct was prohibited. Snell confronted Respondent and reminded her that smoking tobacco products on a school bus was forbidden. On December 12, 1995, Respondent received a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder from Sleeth concerning unauthorized absences on August 28 and 30, 1995; September 14, 1995; October 6 and 26, 1995; and November 6 and 29, 1995. On March 5, 1996, Snell held a conference-for-the- record with Respondent at which Respondent's attendance record was discussed. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on March 14, 1996, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: On March 5, 1996, at 10:15 a.m. a Conference- for-the-Record was held with you in the Office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Mr. Keith White, Administrative Assistant, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not want union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since February [sic] 5, 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . . The conference was held to review your record of Unauthorized leave. Since August 28, 1995, you have accumulated 15 unauthorized absences; they are as follows: 8/28, 8/31, 9/14, 10/6, 10/26, 11/6, 11/29, 12/4/95, 1/5/96, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/18, 1/19 and 1/23/96. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this worksite. You received a copy of Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract and these documents were reviewed with you. District Support Programs are available for you to contact at 995-7111 if you so desire. You stated that you understand the seriousness of the problem and will try to improve your attendance. Any further instances of Unauthorized Absences may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination. You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record. Respondent also received from Snell on March 14, 1996, the following written warning (dated March 11, 1996): As of January 23, 1996, you have been absent on 15 occurrences without authorization. As per the AFSCME contract, Article XI, Section 4-B[:] "Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be 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." You are hereby officially warned that if you continue to have unauthorized absences disciplinary action my result, up to and including suspension, termination, or non- reappointment. On April 30, 1996, Respondent received a written directive from Snell to report for another conference-for-the- record in Snell's office at 9:15 a.m. on May 7, 1996, to discuss her "unauthorized leave and job performance." Respondent failed to report as directed. The conference-for-the-record was rescheduled for May 17, 1996,and ultimately held on that date. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on May 28, 1996, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: On Friday, May 17, 1996, at 9:15 a.m. a conference-for-the-record was held with you in the Office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Mr. Keith White, Administrative Assistant, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not desire union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since February [sic] 5, 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . . The conference was held to review your record of unauthorized leave. Since August 28, 1995, you have accumulated 23 occurrences of unauthorized leave which total 12 1/2 days; they are as follows: 8/28, 8/31, 9/14, 10/6, 10/26, 11/6, 11/29, 12/4/95, 1/5/96, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/18, 1/19, 1/23/96, 4/2, 4/4, 4/17, 4/26, 4/29, 5/3, 5/13, and 5/16/96. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this worksite. Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract were reviewed. The District Support Agency was offered and is available for you and may be contacted at 995-7111 if you so desire. You agreed to call in as soon as you know you are going to be out and to bring documentation in the next working day. Your record of unauthorized absences will be reviewed and this review may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination. You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record. No "disciplinary action" (as that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) was taken against Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year notwithstanding her poor attendance record that year, which included unauthorized absences on the following 30 days during the regular school year: August 28 and 31, 1995; September 14, 1995; October 6 and 26, 1995; November 6 and 29, 1995; December 4, 1995; January 5, 8, 10, 12, 18, 19 and 23 1996; February 16, 1996; March 19, 21, 26 and 28, 1996; April 2, 4, 17, 26, and 29, 1996; May 3, 13, 16 and 17, 1996; and June 4, 1996.4 Respondent was offered a contract for the following school year and she accepted the offer. The 1996-1997 School Year On September 4, 1996, and October 2, 1996, respectively, Respondent reported to work six and ten minutes after the scheduled starting time (6:00 a.m.) of her morning shift. On both of these occasions she received a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder regarding her obligation to report to work on time. Respondent also received written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders for unauthorized absences in November of 1996, on the 5th (afternoon shift), 13th (afternoon and morning shifts), 14th (afternoon and morning shifts), 15th (afternoon shift), 20th (afternoon and morning shifts) and 26th (afternoon shift) of that month, and for reporting eight minutes late to work for her afternoon shift on November 25, 1996. Along with the written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning her November 5 and 13, 1996, unauthorized absences, Respondent was given an explanation of the provisions of Section 9 of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual and Article V, Section 27, of the AFSCME Contract, as well as copies of these provisions. The written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning Respondent's November 14, 15, 20, and 26, 1996, unauthorized absences, and her tardiness on November 25, 1996, were each accompanied by the following "verbal warning" (as that term is used in Article XI, Section 1A, of the AFSCME Contract): "Must adhere to attendance requirements per AFSCME Contract and Drivers Handbook." On December 6, 1996, Respondent was referred by Keith White, an administrative assistant at the Center, to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because of his "concerns" regarding Respondent's unauthorized absences. Respondent was advised of this supervisory referral on December 9, 1996. Respondent declined to participate in the School Board's Employee Assistance Program and continued to have erratic attendance. Respondent received, on January 5, 1997, and March 6, 1997, written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning her unauthorized absences and tardiness, each of which contained the following "written warning" (as that term is used in Article XI, Section 1A, of the AFSCME Contract): "Must adhere to attendance requirements per AFSCME Contract and Drivers Handbook." On March 11, 1997, Snell held a conference-for-the- record with Respondent, at which Respondent's attendance record was discussed. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on March 20, 1997, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: On Tuesday, March 11, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. a conference-for-the-record was held with you in the office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Ms. Willie McKinney, Coordinator, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not desire union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since 5/2 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . . The conference was held to review your record of unauthorized leave and job performance. Since March 19, 1996 you have accumulated 28 whole days of unauthorized leave from 42 occurrences. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this work site. Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract, along with all attached warnings were reviewed. A referral to the District Support Agency [Employee Assistance Program] was made on December 6, 1996. The case was closed due to the fact that you declined to participate. You agreed to call in as soon as possible when you must be absent and to bring documentation in the next working day. You also agreed that you would not be absent unless absolutely necessary. Your record of unauthorized absences will be reviewed with Transportation Administration and the Office of Professional Standards and may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination. You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record. By memorandum dated March 27, 1997, Snell brought the matter of Respondent's "attendance problems" to the attention of Jerry Klein, the senior executive director of the School Board's Transportation Department, and inquired of Klein if he "would like to move forward with [the] dismissal of Ms. Gardner." Klein, on April 1, 1997, sent the following memorandum to Barbara Moss, an executive director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards: Ms. Jennifer M. Gardner, School Bus Aide, South Transportation Center, employee #145489, has accumulated 28 days of Unauthorized Leave Without Pay (ULWP) in the last 12 months. Attached please find supportive documentation from Ms. Pat Snell, Director, South Transportation Center. It is requested that Ms. Gardner be recommended for dismissal for violation of Article XI, Section 4(B) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, excessive absenteeism. Your assistance in obtaining Board approval is appreciated. After reviewing the matter, Moss (by memorandum received by Respondent on April 17, 1997) directed Respondent to appear at a conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1997, in the Office of Professional Standards to discuss Respondent's "attendance to date, and [her] future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools." The conference-for-the-record was held on April 30, 1997, as scheduled. Moss subsequently prepared and later, on June 3, 1997, provided to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Moss wrote the following: Action Taken You were offered an opportunity to resign your position with Dade County Public Schools. The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you during the conference concerning future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to the designated supervisor. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to the designated supervisor upon your return to the site. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board approved leave implemented if eligible to apply for leave. These directives are in effect as of the date of the conference and will be implemented to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit, to the services provided to students, and to insure continuity of the educational program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review [by] the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of disciplinary measures. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Employee Conduct, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, Non-instructional Personnel. You were advised of the high esteem in which employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects performance. You were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe working environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Senior Executive Director in the Office of Professional Standards and the Associate Superintendent in the Office of Labor Relations and Personnel Management. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion, or dismissal. You were apprised of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. On June 5, 1997, Respondent reported for work with the smell of alcohol on her breath. Furthermore, she was unsteady on her feet and her speech was slurred. After conferring with Klein and Moss, Snell directed Respondent to submit to alcohol and drug testing at the Baptist Medical Group's facility in Homestead, Florida. Respondent went to the facility that same day5 and submitted to breath-alcohol testing, which revealed that Respondent had a breath-alcohol level of .191 and that she was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. At the facility that day (June 5, 1997), Respondent also provided a urine specimen for testing. The bottle containing the specimen was labeled and sealed in a manner that made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. It was then sent, along with a partially filled out (by the collector and donor) D.O.T. Custody and Control Form, to LabCorp's laboratory in North Carolina for analysis and testing. The labeled and sealed container with the specimen and accompanying form were received by LabCorp on June 7, 1997. Adequate procedures were employed to ensure that the specimen was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that there had not been any tampering with the specimen. An initial immunoassay screening of Respondent's urine specimen indicated the presumptive presence of the unique metabolites produced when cocaine and marijuana are ingested and metabolized in the body. Additional laboratory testing of the specimen was then performed to verify the results of the immunoassay screen previously performed. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, a reliable and accurate method of confirmatory testing, was utilized. The gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of Respondent's urine specimen was positive for the presence of the cocaine and marijuana metabolites in concentrations consistent with, and indicative of, Respondent's ingestion of cocaine and marijuana prior to the collection of her urine specimen. The drug test results were reported to the School Board and the Medical Review Officer (at the National Medical Review Offices, Inc., in Los Angles, California). On June 10, 1997, Respondent received a memorandum from Snell directing Respondent to contact the Medical Review Officer "as soon as possible." On June 10, 1997, after examining the test results and speaking with Respondent, who admitted that she had used both cocaine and marijuana, the Medical Review Officer verified the test results. He determined, based upon his conversation with Respondent, that there was no legitimate medical explanation for the presence of the cocaine and marijuana metabolites in the urine specimen Respondent had provided. On June 11, 1997, Moss held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The results of the alcohol and drug tests to which Respondent had submitted were discussed at the conference. Upon being told of the test results, Respondent stated, "I don't know about the cocaine, but I am aware of the marijuana. I was very depressed and was with some friends who were using marijuana and joined them in using." She further stated that she did not drink alcoholic beverages when she worked. Also addressed at the conference were Respondent's unauthorized absences. During the 12-month period preceding the conference (June 12, 1996, to June 11, 1997), she had been absent without authorization on the following 37 days for a total of 147 hours or 24.5 "workdays," as that term is defined in Article V, Section 18, of the AFSCME Contract: July 2, 1996 (3 hours); July 29, 1996 (3 hours); October 31, 1996 (3 hours); November 5, 1996 (3 hours); November 13, 1996 (6 hours); November 14, 1996 (6 hours); November 15, 1996 (3 hours); November 19, 1996 (3 hours); November 20, 1996 (6 hours); November 26, 1996 (3 hours); December 4, 1996 (3 hours); December 11, 1996 (6 hours); December 13, 1996 (3 hours); December 18, 1996 (6 hours); December 19, 1996 (3 hours); December 20, 1996 (3 hours); January 8, 1997 (3 hours); January 22, 1997 (3 hours); January 23, 1997 (6 hours); January 27, 1997 (6 hours); February 3, 1997 (6 hours); February 7, 1997 (3 hours); February 12, 1997 (6 hours); February 18, 1997 (3 hours); February 19, 1997 (6 hours); February 20, 1997 (3 hours); February 24, 1997 (3 hours); February 26, 1997 (3 hours); March 3, 1997 (3 hours); March 20, 1997 (3 hours); March 24, 1997 (6 hours); April 15, 1997 (3 hours); April 21, 1997 (6 hours); April 24, 1997 (3 hours); May 12, 1997 (3 hours); May 23, 1997 (3 hours); and June 5, 1997 (3 hours). Respondent was given another assignment at the Center pending further School Board review of her employment At its July 23, 1997, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated a dismissal proceeding against her "for just cause, including but not limited to excessive unauthorized absence and violation of Drug-Free Work Place Policy."
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 dismissing her as an employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1998.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has “just cause” to terminate Respondent’s employment as a bus operator due to incompetency and/or misconduct, for violation of Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and for violations of School Board Policies 5.02, 5.03, and/or 5.29.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Lee County, Florida (Petitioner) is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Lee County, Florida. Dennis Osterbrink (Respondent), has been employed with Petitioner since September 21, 2006. Respondent has maintained his qualifications and is currently assigned as a bus operator in Petitioner’s transportation department. Respondent’s employment is governed by the agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) and Petitioner. In October 2007, Respondent was operating a school bus route which transported students to and from Alva Elementary/Middle School. At that time it was reported to Transportation Supervisor Joe Howard that Respondent had claimed to a Sheriff’s deputy and other school board employees that the students on his bus were all “gang members” and were using gang signs and drugs. Following an investigation into the incident, Respondent was removed from the Alva Elementary/Middle School route for the remainder of the 2007-2008 school year. Respondent was then placed on a route driving students to and from East Lee County High School (ELCHS). In the Fall of 2008, Respondent, while assigned an ELCHS route, was making disparaging remarks about the students on his route. Respondent was counseled by Joe Howard about the comments he was making concerning the students. He was also counseled about an incident where he initiated his route too early and, as a result, only picked up four students, when the route typically had in excess of 30 students. Following the incidents involving the students from ELCHS, in early October 2008, Respondent went into the office of Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation East and alleged that Joe Howard, Respondent’s immediate supervisor and an African- American, was a “cell leader” of the “Black Panthers” political organization, and that he was recruiting students on his bus and in the school to plan a revolution. Respondent brought Morgan to Howard’s work space and showed him a picture of a black panther, that Howard had leaning against his cubical. Respondent offered this example as evidence of Howard’s affiliation with the Black Panthers. Respondent insisted to Morgan that the School District should contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security regarding Howard because he was collecting money from students as a “cell leader” of the Black Panthers, and was a danger to the community. Examination of the photograph revealed that the panther was shown in its natural habitat, with no indications of a political or any other message or insignia on it. Respondent offered no other proof to support his allegations. As a result of Respondent’s unsupported allegations, Respondent was removed from the East Lee County route, from under the supervision of Howard, and also from the Buckingham Compound and placed at the Six Mile Cypress Transportation compound. Howard’s testimony is credible that the picture of the panther in his office had no meaning, other than possibly as a school mascot. In addition, it is found that Howard is not a security risk to the School District or to the community. This is particularly the case since Howard served 21 years in the military and was honorably discharged and has worked more than 18 years for Petitioner as an exemplary employee. On March 30, 2009, Respondent was involved in a minor traffic mishap in the parking lot of the Six Mile Cypress Transportation compound with Linda Leamy, a fellow bus operator. Leamy is an African-American. After work, while backing out of a parking space, Respondent backed into Leamy’s car as it was passing by Respondent’s parking spot. Respondent’s vehicle struck the driver’s side rear door of her car. Leamy testified that she has been a bus operator for nine years and up until March 30, 2009, had never had dealings with Respondent. Following the collision, Leamy got out of her car to check the damage and to check to see if Respondent was injured or not. Respondent immediately began to disparage her by calling her a “stupid idiot.” Respondent used the term “bitches,” which was directed towards Leamy as he yelled at her. A crowd began to gather at the scene of the collision because Respondent was raising his voice. At that time, Leamy called dispatch and a supervisor came and escorted Respondent away from the scene. On May 15, 2009, Respondent was in the driver’s lounge at the Six Mile Cypress Transportation compound, and as he walked by a group of co-workers, he thought he heard another co- worker, Chrishaundra Phillips, say something derogatory directed towards him. Phillips is also African-American. Leamy was seated at a table nearby but was not involved. Respondent approached Phillips and said, “I know what you said.” Respondent then became irate, and slammed his hand on the table where Leamy was seated, and stated to her, “We can take care of this right now, let’s take it outside.” Respondent then stated, “I will defend myself against you people . . . .” Leamy stood up and asked everyone to witness Respondent’s actions. Respondent then stormed toward the exit door, which was not blocked, but yelled at another co-worker Vonetta Vickers, also an African-American, to “get out of my fucking way.” Respondent then called all the employees in the lounge a “bunch of gangsters” and stated, “Don’t push me or I’ll push back.” Morgan was called to handle the situation. Respondent’s irrational actions on May 15, 2009, were similar to his actions on March 30, 2009, and caused Leamy to be “scared,” and also to feel as though Respondent had it “out for her.” The testimony by several witnesses is reliable that on May 15, 2009, Respondent, while engaged in the confrontation in the drivers lounge, was using several types of racial remarks, including, “You people need to go back to where you came from, back to the housing projects; what are you going to do, get your gangs to beat me up?” Respondent also used the phrase, “all you black people” and the word “nigger” during his tirade. On August 10, 2009, while under suspension, Respondent was permitted to engage in bidding for a route for the 2009-2010 school year. While attending the bidding session, at Dunbar High School, Respondent informed Morgan that while walking through the parking lot, two black males drove passed him in a car, smoking cigars and made a shooting gesture towards him. When Morgan checked on the two students, he discovered that they were band members who were on campus as members of the marching band. There was no evidence presented to substantiate Respondent’s claims that they had threatened him. Respondent’s bizarre and racially motivated behavior continued. In late September 2009, Respondent filed a petition in the Circuit Court seeking a restraining order against both Leamy and Howard. Respondent alleged that Leamy tampered with his mail box; that she was in a gang; and that she was in the Black Panthers organization and had showed him some kind of weapon during the bidding. Respondent alleged that Howard threatened him in a parking lot; that he would have Respondent shot to death by two individuals; that his mailbox was tampered with; and that Howard was stalking him and was having others under his control stalk him. Both petitions were dismissed by the court. At a predetermination conference held on October 14, 2009, Respondent indicated that he was being terrorized by African-Americans and that Petitioner and its staff were complicit in this terrorism. He requested that Petitioner report all of the activities that he had alleged in the past to the United States Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Respondent indicated that he was undergoing psychological and psychiatric counseling because of all of the “racial issues” he was dealing with, but failed to offer specifics regarding such treatment. Dr. Gregory Adkins, Chief Human Resources Officer, testified that Respondent’s testimony at the predetermination conference was “quite alarming.” He concluded that Respondent was not being specifically targeted by anyone and that Respondent was making “outlandish claims” that racism somehow runs through everything. Dr. Adkins stated that he questioned Respondent’s mental stability. Respondent was rated as effective in his annual performance assessment at the end of the school years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. Respondent was recommended for retention in his position, although two of his routing supervisors expressed concern about his communication skills with co-workers. The testimony is clear that Respondent is displaying irrational, paranoid behaviors while on the job, and should not be around students. It is apparent that Respondent cannot effectively supervise students while they are under his care on a school bus. Respondent has a severe problem coping or interacting with ethnically diverse people, which is characterized by his paranoid behavior, as outlined by the incidents highlighted above in this case. Respondent was thoroughly advised of his right to present testimony in his own defense, but he declined to testify in his own behalf. In addition, the testimony of the other witnesses presented by Petitioner was credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County, enter a final order holding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent for violation of School Board Policies 5.02(2), (4) and 5.29(1); and that Respondent should be dismissed from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
