The Issue The issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, Respondent got into a scuffle with a student; and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes just cause for Petitioner's dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent José Lopez ("Lopez") as a bus driver, a position he has held since 2008. The events in dispute occurred on the afternoon of March 9, 2016. At the time, Lopez was working as a "spare driver," meaning that, instead of being assigned to a regular route, he drove to different locations as needed. This particular afternoon, the dispatcher directed Lopez to make a late pickup at Forest Hill Community High School ("Forest Hill") in West Palm Beach because the regular driver's bus had broken down. Lopez had some trepidation about accepting this assignment because he was familiar with the route in question and considered it dangerous due to the behavior of the students. Nevertheless, he proceeded to Forest Hill as instructed. The bus was behind schedule when Lopez arrived at the school, through no fault of his. The other busses already had pulled away, and the students waiting for Lopez's bus were standing in the road (or "bus loop" as it is called). As the bus pulled up, some students began running beside it, creating a potentially dangerous situation. The administrator on bus duty, Dr. Demetrius Permenter, ordered Lopez to drive around the loop again, so that he could get the students out of the road and under control. Lopez complied. On his second approach, Lopez parked the bus and opened the side-entry double doors, which are located at the front of the bus, opposite the driver (to his right when driving). The students jostled and pushed each other as they rushed to board the bus. Again fearing that someone might get hurt, Dr. Permenter told the students to stop boarding and——to prevent others from entering——instructed Lopez to close the doors. Lopez complied. As the doors closed, students continued to dash in, disobeying Dr. Permenter. The last student to board the bus was Michael Clark, then 17 years old. Although he had bolted inside the bus at the last second, Michael could not proceed to a seat because his arm (or the arm of his jacket) got caught between the doors as they shut, trapping him at the bottom of the interior steps. Fortunately, Michael was not hurt, which was obvious to everyone around, for he began to laugh at the somewhat comical position he had placed himself in. Others, including Dr. Permenter, chuckled too, and Lopez raised his hands, palms forward, in an exaggerated gesture of mock exasperation, before opening the doors, freeing Michael. All told, the student was stuck for about five seconds. To this point, the atmosphere had been one of energetic merriment. The students had been excited, boisterous, and generally in high spirits. But suddenly, the mood changed. As Michael climbed the steps onto the bus, he angrily demanded to know why his arm had been stuck "in the damn door so fucking long." Dr. Permenter clearly heard this disrespectful outburst and knew immediately that "some[thing] was going on." Tr. 96. Lopez thought, "Something is coming. I don't wanna do it." Tr. 335. At hearing, Dr. Permenter testified that Michael's statement could have been perceived as aggressive, Tr. 108, but he did not view it that way at the time, perhaps, in part, because he could not see Michael's face. Tr. 132. Lopez rose from his seat. Although Michael's belligerent query had not been overtly threatening, it carried an unmistakable whiff of menace——enough, clearly, to put a reasonable person on guard. Sitting behind the wheel placed Lopez in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis Michael. Therefore, rising to his feet sensibly increased Lopez's options for fight or flight, should it come to that, and reduced the risk that he would be set upon by an attacker looming over him, raining down blows. In sum, because Michael had addressed Lopez, not as an authority figure, but (at best) as a peer and possibly as prey, Lopez's decision to stand was reasonable under the circumstances. Lopez, who had stood up next to the right edge of the driver's seat, turned to his right to face Michael, who was drawing near, and asked, "What's your problem, man?" In the blink of an eye, the two began to tussle. The question at the heart of this dispute is: Who initiated the physical altercation? The District alleges that Lopez panicked and lashed out at a student merely for using foul language.1/ Lopez claims that he acted reasonably in self-defense after Michael attacked him. Accounts of the next few relevant moments differ sharply, which is par for the course. What is worse, from the fact-finder's perspective, is the thinness of the evidence. The two protagonists were the only witnesses at hearing having personal knowledge of all the relevant facts, and both were relatively inarticulate; they each gave testimony that was neither precise nor explicit. The other eyewitness, Dr. Permenter, described the events with admirable precision, as far as his testimony went, but he did not see everything and could not say whether Lopez or Michael had been the aggressor. Then there are the two surveillance videos ("3A" and "3B"), which together amount to a virtual witness who "testifies" through the sound and images recorded by the cameras mounted on the bus. Yet, while the video evidence is both captivating and seemingly unbiased, it is a mistake to assume casually that the assertive narrative of any given video is objective and unambiguous, for rarely is that true, if ever. Viewers of filmic evidence, including the undersigned, do not somehow become eyewitnesses to past events, for video merely represents, imperfectly, the real events captured on camera. Of necessity, each member of the audience projects onto the images his or her own interpretation of the scenes depicted. As the fact-finder, the undersigned must determine the significance, meaning, and story of the images preserved in videos 3A and 3B based upon a critical review of the films in conjunction with a careful consideration of all the available evidence. Michael testified that after Lopez stood up, he (Lopez) reached for Michael's neck, which initiated the tussle. Video 3A persuasively rebuts Michael's testimony in this regard. Lopez clearly did not reach for Michael's neck——not right away, anyway. Unfortunately for purposes of this case, however, video 3A does not persuasively describe the entire event, as a result of the static position of the camera. Video 3A was shot by a camera mounted at the front of the bus, over the driver's left shoulder (as he faces forward). The angle of the shot gives the viewer the perspective of looking down, from the left side of the bus, onto the front inside area of the vehicle, which encompasses the driver's seat (closest to the camera); the landing at the head of the center aisle, onto which passengers step after ascending the front steps inside the vehicle; the first few rows of passenger seats; and the side-entry double doors located to the driver's right. The disputed event took place largely within sight of this camera. A major drawback of video 3A is that when Lopez stood up, his body got between the camera and Michael, giving us a good shot of Lopez's back, but blocking our view of Michael. Thus, we cannot observe which one made the first physical contact. Despite its limitations, video 3A provides much useful information. As mentioned, there is a landing at the head of the center aisle, which is adjacent to the driver's seat. The center aisle is bordered by silver edging trim (also known as transition strips). The passenger seats and the driver's seat are outside these strips. When Lopez stood and turned to face Michael (as Michael climbed the steps and approached), the driver planted his feet mostly on "his" side of the edging trim; only the toes of his shoes touched the landing. Next to his right foot was a waste basket located on the driver's side of the trim, near the driver's seat. Lopez's calves were quite close to his seat. Simply put, when Lopez stood and faced Michael, he occupied his work station. It was Michael who walked across the landing and got into Lopez's face, while Lopez was standing——literally——in his own personal space. Facing each other, the two briefly exchanged words, but the evidence is insufficient to permit the undersigned to make a finding as to what was said. During this short verbal encounter, Lopez's arms remained at his side. Also, Lopez's feet stayed on his side of the driver's area. It should be understood that, at this moment, Lopez was basically standing his ground, for he was effectively trapped. Unlike Michael, who had the freedom to exit the bus or proceed down the aisle via unobstructed paths, Lopez could not escape except by getting past Michael. For Lopez, retreat meant falling back into his driver's seat, which would have put him at a disadvantage. Video 3A shows that, as the two talked, Lopez abruptly stepped sideways and backwards on his right foot, which bumped into the waste basket. Lopez appears to be reacting to something, and has perhaps been knocked off balance, but Michael's actions cannot be made out because Lopez's body is in the way. After regaining his footing, Lopez reached forward with his right hand while leaning slightly to the right, as if he were going to embrace Michael, and took a step forward with his left foot, raising his left hand towards Michael's waist in a motion that, again, looks like the start of a hug, except that Michael's right arm would have been pinned against his body had Lopez succeeded in getting his arm around the student. Simultaneously, Michael slipped his left hand under Lopez's right arm and grabbed the driver's left shoulder, while using his right hand to take hold of Lopez's left shirt collar. Here, Michael clearly went on the offensive, driving Lopez forcefully back and pushing him into the driver's seat. Lopez got back to his feet, and Michael slammed him hard into the steering wheel and driver's seat. Lopez used his arms in an attempt to protect himself, but Michael began to overpower the driver. At about this time, Dr. Permenter entered the bus, and he reached out immediately to restrain Michael. At the same time, Lopez bounced up and managed to push Michael back a step or two, reaching unsuccessfully for his neck. At hearing, Dr. Permenter recalled that Michael seemed to calm down and stop struggling upon the administrator's arrival. Video 3A rebuts this testimony. As it actually happened, Michael advanced on Lopez and pushed the driver backwards, nearly into the steering wheel, as Dr. Permenter tugged on Michael's arm to pull him away from Lopez. In response, Lopez lunged forward and reached again with both hands for Michael's throat. The School Board uses a screenshot from video 3B capturing this moment that appears to show Lopez choking or strangling Michael. But, though arresting, this particular still is misleading because, whereas the screenshot gives the impression that Lopez had locked his hands around the student's neck, the video shows that in real time the driver's hands were actually in that visually dramatic position for just a split second before releasing. In truth, if Lopez even made contact with Michael's throat, it was an extremely brief touch. Lopez, obviously agitated, exclaimed, "Get out of here, motherfucker!" Dr. Permenter stepped between Lopez and Michael, and said, "Uh uh, let him go, let him go." Without hesitating, Dr. Permenter then threw his body into Lopez, and knocked the driver back into his seat, separating Lopez and Michael. Michael was yelling at Lopez and Dr. Permenter, but his words, as recorded on the videos, cannot be understood. With that, the altercation was over. Shortly thereafter, Michael was escorted off the bus. The District alleges that it has just cause to fire Lopez based upon the following allegations of material fact: As [Michael] was entering the bus, Mr. Lopez closed the bus doors, thereby trapping the [student] in the doors. * * * [Later, d]uring the investigation . . . , Mr. Lopez stated that he accidently closed the bus door on [Michael]. In fact, Michael did become caught in the doors by accident——an accident for which he (Michael), having disobediently boarded the bus knowing that the doors were shutting, was 100% at fault. Lopez, who had closed the doors on Dr. Permenter's order, was blameless in connection with this mishap. After several seconds, Mr. Lopez opened the door. As [Michael] walked up the steps of the bus, [he] questioned Respondent about being caught in the doors. In fact, Michael rudely barked, "Why was my arm stuck in the damn door so fucking long?" Michael was, of course, way out of line in making this menacing remark to the driver, who reasonably rose from his seat in a self-protective maneuver. Respondent is seen [in video 3A] stepping towards the victim and using his body to make contact with [Michael]. In fact, Lopez clearly stood his ground near the driver's seat. It was plainly Michael who moved toward Lopez, not the other way around. Lopez did make contact with Michael, but it is quite possible that Michael made physical contact with Lopez first. The evidence is ambiguous as to the question of whether Lopez or Michael struck first. Mr. Lopez and [Michael] engage[d] in a physical tussle, until they [we]re separated by a school staff member that boarded the bus. Once separated, Mr. Lopez again lunged at [Michael] and made physical contact with the student, which caused a second scuffle. A school staff member got between Respondent and [Michael] and broke up the altercation. Without a doubt, there was a tussle, but there was not, in fact, a "second scuffle" for which Lopez was somehow primarily responsible. The two combatants, in fact, were not actually "separated" until Dr. Permenter threw himself into Lopez and knocked the driver down. Until then, both individuals had thrust and parried with their arms, hands, and legs. During the struggle, Michael was as, if not more, aggressive than Lopez, who was, very possibly, merely defending himself, as he maintains. During the incident, Mr. Lopez used profanity. Lopez admitted this allegation, which was proved, in any event, by clear and convincing evidence, as he can be heard calling Michael a "motherfucker" in the video. The context, however, is crucial. The bad word or words were uttered by Lopez, not gratuitously, but in the heat of battle, when emotions were high and Lopez was understandably and justifiably angry at Michael. In contrast, Michael used profanity gratuitously in the absence of conflict, without justification, when he boarded the bus——far worse conduct.2/ Lopez's use of profanity, under the circumstances, was a de minimis infraction, not just cause for dismissal. The upshot is that the District failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the essential allegation against Lopez, namely that he had initiated and escalated a physical altercation with a student. As far as establishing who the aggressor was, the evidence is ambiguous. Although Lopez did not have the burden to prove his innocence, he presented evidence sufficient to raise the genuine possibility that he had acted in self-defense, not in retaliation, using reasonable force to protect himself from harm while under attack. This genuine possibility precludes the undersigned from forming a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that Lopez acted in an unjustifiably aggressive or retaliatory fashion, as charged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order exonerating Lopez of all charges brought against him in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent, Patricia Banks', employment as a school bus operator based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. Since October 31, 2001, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus operator. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County and the School Board (the "SPALC Agreement"). In September 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive a morning route and an afternoon route. Her morning route ended at about 10:00 a.m., and her afternoon route commenced at about 1:30 p.m. Respondent's daughter, India Miller, also worked as a school bus operator for the School Board. On September 20, 2004, between her morning and afternoon routes, Respondent drove her daughter to the Wal-Mart store on Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers. Ms. Miller's car was not running, and she was in the process of moving into a new residence. She had asked Respondent to take her to Wal-Mart to purchase cleaning supplies and to look into buying a new computer. Respondent and Ms. Miller were wearing their School Board bus driver uniforms. Respondent parked her car in front of the store, but near the garden department, which is on the side of the building along with the automotive department. Respondent and Ms. Miller entered the building through the front or "general merchandise" ("GM") entrance. Respondent and Ms. Miller proceeded to the electronics department to look at computers. They were assisted by David Heady, a sales associate in the electronics department. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent asked him several questions about the functionality of a certain computer, an eMachines desktop model priced at $698.00. Each woman said she wanted one of the computers, but Mr. Heady had only one of them on the floor. He put that one in a shopping cart for Respondent, then proceeded to the storeroom to get a second computer for Ms. Miller. When he returned with the second computer, about three minutes later, Mr. Heady noticed that Ms. Miller and the first computer were gone. Respondent told him that Ms. Miller had taken the computer to the front of the store to check out. This disturbed Mr. Heady because it is Wal-Mart's policy that all computers should be paid for in the electronics department. Mr. Heady's suspicions were also somewhat aroused by the fact that it was Ms. Miller who took the first computer out of his department, when it was Respondent who had asked for it. According to Mr. Heady, Respondent started toward the front of the store with the second computer, but Mr. Heady stopped her and told her she had to pay for it in the electronics department. Respondent paid cash for the computer, a total of $739.88, then left the electronics department. Mr. Heady then called the loss prevention office and spoke with loss prevention officer, Bernard "Bo" Lee, to inform him that a computer that had not been paid for had been removed from the electronics department. He testified that he checked out Respondent before alerting loss prevention of the missing computer because he did not want a confrontation with Respondent. Mr. Heady also informed his supervisor in the electronics department, Terrell Russ, about the missing computer. Mr. Russ, in turn, made his own call to loss prevention and spoke with another loss prevention officer, Mickey Holman. Respondent testified that she and her daughter went into the electronics department because her daughter wanted a new computer. Respondent stated that she knows very little about computers and that it was Ms. Miller who was asking technical questions of Mr. Heady. Respondent did ask if Mr. Heady had a second computer because she was interested in placing one on layaway for her sons. Respondent testified that there was no computer on the floor of the electronics department. When her daughter told Mr. Heady she wanted to buy the model under discussion, he had to retrieve it from the storeroom. Respondent testified that she waited for Mr. Heady to bring the computer while Ms. Miller shopped for her cleaning supplies. Mr. Heady returned with the computer and told Respondent that she would have to pay for the computer before she could take it out of the electronics department. Respondent called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and told her that she had to come back to the electronics department to pay for the computer. Respondent also asked Ms. Miller if she could afford to lend her the money to place a computer on layaway. Ms. Miller responded that she would not know until she completed her purchases. Respondent could not recall whether Ms. Miller told her that she was coming back to purchase the computer. Respondent left the electronics department and walked to the in-store McDonalds to eat lunch. Finding the McDonalds too crowded, she went outside to smoke a cigarette. The one piece of documentary evidence available at the hearing was the Wal-Mart receipt for the purchase of the computer. The receipt indicates that the computer was purchased with cash in the electronics department, though it does not establish whether it was Respondent or Ms. Miller who made the purchase. Respondent's testimony agrees with that of Mr. Heady on one point: Ms. Miller left the electronics department and was separated from Respondent for at least several minutes. Messrs. Lee, Holman, and Russ all observed Ms. Miller during the time she was separated from Respondent. Mr. Lee testified that he was patrolling the floors of Wal-Mart to watch for shoplifters. He noticed three black women, including Ms. Miller and two unidentified women, placing an eMachines computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Lee stated that the eMachines computers were a "hot item," and he, therefore, paid special attention when customers placed them in shopping carts. Though he had seen Respondent with the other women in the electronics department, Mr. Lee did not see her touch the computer. Mr. Lee stated that he followed Ms. Miller to the front of the store. Respondent was still in the electronics department. Mr. Lee observed Ms. Miller push the cart holding the computer to the line of cash registers, through the line, past the greeter who checked her receipt, and out the GM entrance. Though he did not specifically observe Ms. Miller pay for the computer at the front registers, Mr. Lee assumed that it had been paid for because the greeter allowed her to leave the store without incident. From just inside the GM doors, Mr. Lee watched Ms. Miller walk to a car in the front parking lot. Mr. Lee did not see Ms. Miller load the computer into the car, but he did observe her re-enter the store a few minutes later, without the computer, but carrying a Wal-Mart receipt. He followed Ms. Miller to the toy department, where she met Respondent and the two unidentified women standing near a shopping cart containing a second eMachines computer. Mr. Holman testified that after being radioed by Mr. Russ that a computer had been taken from the electronics department by one of two women in school bus driver uniforms, he began searching the store. He observed Ms. Miller go through the checkout area and past the greeter, who signaled that Ms. Miller had a receipt for her computer. Mr. Holman radioed to the electronics department and told them there was no problem, that the woman had paid for the computer. The person in electronics who answered told Mr. Holman that there was a second computer. Mr. Holman went to look for the second computer while Mr. Lee maintained his surveillance on Ms. Miller. Mr. Holman found the missing computer sitting in an unattended shopping cart in the toy department. After a minute or two, he saw Respondent approach the cart. Then, two other women joined her, and they began talking. Mr. Holman stated that Respondent approached the cart several times, but did not actually touch or take hold of it. After a few minutes, Ms. Miller approached the group of three women. Mr. Lee followed her and maintained his surveillance apart from Mr. Holman. Both loss prevention officers were out of earshot of the four women. Mr. Lee recalled that Ms. Miller handed the receipt to Respondent at that point, though they later passed it back and forth more than once. After some conversation, the two unidentified women walked away. Ms. Miller began pushing the cart containing the computer toward the automotive department called the "TLE" for "Tire and Lube Express." Respondent walked in front of the cart. Mr. Lee noted that exiting through the TLE in the rear of the store would require Respondent and Ms. Miller to walk around the outside of the store to reach the front parking lot and that exiting through the GM entrance would be much more convenient. Mr. Lee testified that this behavior alone would have aroused his suspicions. The women guided the cart out through the TLE entrance. Ms. Miller pushed the cart, and Respondent lifted the front of the cart over the metal strip in the doorway. The electronic article surveillance ("EAS") system did not sound an alarm. Mr. Lee testified that it is not unusual for the EAS system not to sound, and he attached no significance to its silence. After the women were outside the store, Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman approached and asked them to return to the store. Ms. Miller told the men they had scared her. She said, "I pissed myself [sic]." Ms. Miller also told Mr. Lee that she had a receipt for a computer. Mr. Lee found it significant that she said "a computer," rather than "this computer." Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman escorted the women to the loss prevention office. Ms. Miller, ultimately, admitted to stealing the computer. Respondent denied doing anything wrong and was visibly upset when she was detained. In the loss prevention office, Respondent called her employer on her cell phone to arrange for someone to cover her afternoon bus route. None of the Wal-Mart employees present in the loss prevention office could recall Respondent's making any statement that could be construed as incriminating. The local police arrived, and both women were arrested. Ms. Miller subsequently resigned her employment with the School Board. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's criminal case had not been resolved. Again, Respondent told a different story. While she was smoking her cigarette outside, Respondent began to worry about finishing the shopping in time to drive her afternoon bus route. She called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and asked how much longer she would be in the store. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she was paying for her merchandise and asked Respondent whether she had seen her in-laws in the store. Respondent said that she had not seen them and asked where they were. Ms. Miller told her that she last saw them in the toy department. Respondent finished her cigarette, then walked back into Wal-Mart. She walked to the toy department and found her relatives where Ms. Miller had last seen them. Respondent noted that they had a computer in a shopping cart. One of the in-laws told her that it was Ms. Miller's computer, and they were waiting there for Ms. Miller to return. Ms. Miller arrived, took control of the shopping cart, and asked Respondent if she was ready to go. Respondent saw a Wal-Mart receipt in her daughter's hand. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she needed to buy something in the automotive department. Ms. Miller pushed the cart toward the rear of the store, where the TLE was located. When they reached the TLE, Ms. Miller began asking questions of the sales associate. Respondent interrupted her, saying they had to leave in order to make their afternoon bus routes. Ms. Miller pushed the cart out the TLE entrance, and they were approached by Messrs. Holman and Lee, who told them they needed to come back inside. Ms. Miller said, "Oh, shit. You're gonna make me piss on myself." Respondent wondered why Ms. Miller was reacting so strongly, if she had done nothing wrong. Respondent was adamant that she had no idea Ms. Miller was attempting to steal a computer. Respondent believed Ms. Miller had paid for the computer. Respondent testified that she and Ms. Miller had both worked for Wal-Mart in the past, and both knew that a customer is not allowed to take a computer from the electronics department without paying for it. Ms. Miller apparently had a receipt for the computer. Respondent testified that it never crossed her mind that Ms. Miller would steal a computer; that she believed her daughter "had better sense than that." Based upon the testimony of all the witnesses, including the deposition testimony of Messrs. Lee and Holman, and the documentary evidence, it is found that the School Board did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent stole a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence certainly demonstrated that Respondent's daughter, Ms. Miller, attempted to steal a computer. However, even if the testimony of the School Board's witnesses were accepted in its entirety, no witness definitively linked Respondent to the computer in such a way as to demonstrate her guilty knowledge that it was being stolen. The testimony of Mr. Holman cannot be credited. After detaining Respondent and Ms. Miller, Mr. Holman prepared a written report attesting that he observed Ms. Miller purchase a computer in the electronics department and take it to her car, while Respondent selected another computer, put it in a shopping cart, and took it to the toy department. In his pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Holman testified that he saw Ms. Miller select and pay for a computer in the electronics department. During cross-examination during the final hearing, Mr. Holman conceded that he witnessed none of these events. Mr. Holman's efforts to explain his misleading statements were unconvincing. He essentially stated that his reporting practice was to write a first-person narrative commingling hearsay reports from other witnesses with his own personal observations. Thus, when Mr. Holman wrote, "I observed a female (India Miller) purchase a desktop PC in the electronics [department]," he actually meant that Mr. Lee observed the purchase and later told Mr. Holman about it. Mr. Holman's testimony must be disregarded because the undersigned cannot reliably distinguish between Mr. Holman's first-hand observations and the hearsay statements that he adopted as his own. The testimony of the remaining witnesses conflicted on key points. The evidence established that Mr. Heady was confused as to the time of day during which the relevant events occurred. Mr. Heady had no recollection of the two unidentified black women whom Mr. Lee stated were with Respondent and Ms. Miller in the electronics department. Mr. Lee stated that he saw Ms. Miller and the two unidentified women put a computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Heady testified that he placed the computers in the shopping carts. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent paid for the first computer. However, he also testified that it was Respondent who asked him technical questions about the computer's capabilities. Respondent credibly testified that she is ignorant about computers and that it was her daughter who was asking Mr. Heady the technical questions. It is likely that Mr. Heady's recollection was confused and that it was Ms. Miller who paid for the first computer. Respondent's narrative of the relevant events was not without its inconsistencies, but the burden was not on Respondent to establish her innocence. Respondent's narrative was credible as to the key point, that she did not know her daughter was attempting to steal a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence presented by the School Board was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent ever gave any indication, through her words or her actions, that she knew Ms. Miller had not paid for the computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Termination of Employment, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding her back pay and benefits retroactive to December 16, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Dismissal from Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public school operations in Palm Beach County. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus attendant since January 25, 2006. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings. As a school bus attendant employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the SEIU/Florida Public Services Union (SEIU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and SEIU (SEIU Contract). Article 7 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Employees Contractual Rights." Section 2 of this article provides as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the School Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Management Rights," and it provides, in pertinent part, that the School Board has the right "to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." As is its right under Article 8 of the SEIU Contract, the School Board has established requirements for its school bus attendants. These requirements are set forth in a School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook (SDSBA Handbook) distributed to each and every school bus driver and school bus attendant employed by the School Board. The SDSBA Handbook provides, in pertinent part, as follows: X. Transportation of Exceptional Students by School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants * * * B. Bus attendant shall be assigned to ESE routes when necessary and when possible. . . . * * * D. The ESE Bus Attendant * * * . . . . His regular assigned seat should be at the rear of the bus to facilitate student observation and behavior management. Assists the bus driver, parents, and school personnel in loading and unloading students at bus stops and school centers, as necessary and as directed. . . . 5. Assists the bus driver and students in following the school bus rules and procedures. * * * Assures that all seat belts, wheelchair securements, and occupant restraints are put away or locked in the seats when not in use to avoid safety hazards. Shall be alert to student passenger needs at all times, getting up to assist students in route, providing directions to students, and maintaining order. However, unless attending to a student's needs, the attendant shall remain seated at the rear of the bus when the bus is in motion. * * * 11. Performs other relevant duties as required, such as securing wheelchairs, securing students in their occupant restraints, cleaning up students, helping the driver clean up the bus, putting windows up and down, safely securing carry-on items, securing wheelchair trays, and assisting the driver in performing the Pre-Trip and Post- Trip Inspections. * * * 14. Shall be thoroughly familiar and perform in accordance with the training Handbooks of this School District: School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook; and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook. The Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, which is referenced in the SDSBA Handbook, stated the following, among other things, regarding the job responsibilities of "ESE Bus Attendants": Overview of the Job of the Bus Attendant . . . . The Bus Attendant assists the Bus Driver with bus cleanliness, emergency situations, pre-trip and post-trip bus safety inspections, and knowing the route. * * * Preparing for Daily Trips * * * Check the wheelchair securement and occupant restraints for proper functioning. . . . Help the Bus Driver perform the pre-trip inspections. Help the Bus Driver clean up the bus. * * * Safely secure any loose items. Make sure that seat belts, wheel chair securements, and occupant restraints are put away or locked in the seats when not in use in order to avoid hazards. Working with Students A major duty that is required of a Bus Attendant is to care for students while they are on the bus. This means that you are to get out of your seat as necessary to be sure that students are safe, following the bus rules, and are not in any physical, health, or medical danger. You also must assist the Bus Driver, parents, and school personnel with loading and unloading of students at bus stops and school centers. You will do this as necessary and as directed. Specifically Bus Attendants must: Assist all pre-school students up and down the bus stairwell. Assist physically impaired students up and down the bus stairwell. Help any student who needs your assistance getting onto/off the bus. Open and close the bus lift door and assist students who are in a wheelchair onto/off the lift in the absence of a parent or school person, or when a parent/guardian cannot help due to extenuating circumstances. Operate the wheelchair lift. Secure wheelchairs, and secure students in their occupant restraint systems. Clean up students and the bus when students have soiled themselves. Help the students to follow the bus rules and procedures. Be alert to student passenger needs at all times. Give assistance to students, provide direction to them and help to maintain order on the bus. * * * Where you place yourself on the bus is important. It is generally recommended that a Bus Attendant sit at the back of the bus, which allows you to watch the students in front of you. . . . Article 17 of the SEIU Contract addresses "[d]iscipline of [e]mployees" and provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable School Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless, there is another reasonably related act by the same employee within a twenty four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable law. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Respondent has been disciplined by the School Board on previous occasions for failing to properly perform her job duties as an ESE school bus attendant. On August 26, 2008, Respondent received a verbal reprimand with written notation "for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under [her] care as a bus attendant." The letter advising her of such disciplinary action read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a verbal reprimand with written notation for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under your care as a bus attendant. Specifically, on June 6, 2008, during your pre-disciplinary meeting you stated that you take a nonprescription medication that makes you sleepy. Furthermore, the review of two (2) videos from buses that you served as an attendant revealed you were asleep and not seated in the rear of the bus while students were being transported. Additionally, these acts w[ere] confirmed by Ms. Evangelina Patterson who stated that you have fallen asleep on every route that you served as an attendant on her bus. Your conduct reflects a failure to exercise the best professional judgment. In addition, you compromised the safety and well-being of a student that you were responsible for monitoring by failing to be alert and properly positioned to carry out your duties as an attendant. This behavior is not permissible according to The School District of Palm Beach County, Transportation Department School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, Sec. X D.8 and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Attendants Handbook Chapter II. Furthermore, you are directed to desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This letter of verbal reprimand with written notation will be placed in your District personnel file. Please be advised that the above referenced case and related investigative file is considered to be closed. Pursuant to Section 1012.31, Florida Statutes, when an investigation is concluded, all materials related to the investigation shall be treated as a public record, subject to disclosure upon request, minus any allowable exemptions. In addition, you have the right to inspect this public record and to submit any written rebuttal information for enclosure into the public record within ten days after receipt of this letter. On October 28, 2008, Respondent was given a written reprimand "for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under [her] care as a bus attendant." This written reprimand was in the form of a letter, which read as follows This correspondence is being given to you as a written reprimand for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under your care as a bus attendant. Specifically on October 22, 2008, during your pre- disciplinary meeting you stated that you were not fully alert while serving as an attendant on Route E536. Furthermore, a review of the video from this bus revealed that you were asleep while students were being transported. Your conduct reflects a failure to exercise the best professional judgment. In addition, you compromised the safety and well-being of a student that you were responsible for monitoring by failing to be alert and properly positioned to carry out your duties as an attendant.. This behavior is not permissible according to The School District of Palm Beach County, Transportation Department School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, Sec. X D.8 and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Attendants Handbook Chapter II. Furthermore, you are directed to desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This written reprimand will be placed in your District personnel file. Please be advised that the above referenced case and related investigative file is considered to be closed. Pursuant to Section 1012.31, Florida Statutes, when an investigation is concluded, all materials related to the investigation shall be treated as a public record, subject to disclosure upon request, minus any allowable exemptions. In addition, you have the right to inspect this public record and to submit any written rebuttal information for enclosure into the public record within ten days after receipt of this letter. Notwithstanding (and in brazen disregard of) the reasonable directive contained in this written reprimand that she "desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future," less than three months later, on the morning of January 22, 2009, Respondent was once again inattentive while on duty as an ESE school bus attendant. The bus to which she was assigned that morning was Bus #0691, which was driven by Evangelina Patterson. There was an operational video camera (with audio), mounted in the front of the interior of the bus, which captured what occurred on the bus that morning. At 8:08 a.m., Bus #0691 arrived at the school to which the three students then on the bus were being transported. The students unfastened their seat belts, got out of their seats, and exited the bus. Instead of escorting the students off the bus, Respondent stayed in her seat, put her jacket over her face, and leaned her head against the window in an admitted effort to get some rest. She remained essentially in this position for at least the next 18 minutes, keeping her jacket over her face the entire time, except for a brief moment (at approximately 8:16 a.m.) when, startled by a tap on the leg from the driver, Ms. Patterson, who was trying to rouse her, she temporarily removed the jacket. During this 18-minute period, without Respondent's assistance, Ms. Patterson did her post-trip inspection and readied the bus for its next trip that morning. On this next trip, the bus picked up three students and transported them to their high school. For at least the last seven or eight minutes of the trip, none of the three students was wearing a seat belt, a situation that Respondent did nothing, during that time period, to try to correct. One of the three unbelted students (seated three rows in front of Respondent) had his back facing the window and his left lower leg and foot in the aisle. The student's book bag was also in the aisle, immediately next to his left foot, so that the entire width of the aisle was blocked. For almost all of this seven or eight-minute period at the end of the trip, Respondent's eyes were closed and her head was bobbing back and forth. She had no interaction with the students on the bus. After the bus arrived at the school, Respondent walked behind the students as they exited the bus. As she passed by the camera in the front of the bus, Respondent looked like she had just woken up, with her eyes appearing to be adjusting to the light. Respondent has demonstrated, through her actions, that she cannot be depended upon to be alert and attentive at all times while on duty and to otherwise discharge her job responsibilities as a school bus attendant in a manner that will ensure the safety of the students in her care and that will not expose the School Board to liability. Consequently, her continued employment as a school bus attendant constitutes a real and immediate danger to the School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Vicki L. Evans-Pare, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Aikeea Howell 5145 Caribbean Boulevard, Apt. 1027 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employer based on the incident that occurred on November 3, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's employment with Petitioner began on September 30, 2002. He is a school bus driver, who works out of the south zone transportation compound. The position of the bus driver is an education support employee. Respondent is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). Since Respondent commenced working for Petitioner in September 2002, he received one probationary performance assessment and three annual performance assessments. Respondent always scored an "effective level of performance" in all areas targeted for assessment. The "comment" section for Petitioner's 2003-2004 performance assessment stated he was "an excellent employee." On his 2004-2005 assessment, the assessor wrote in the "comments" section that Respondent "performs daily route, requiring little supervision." Respondent's director recommended that Respondent's annual contract with Petitioner be renewed for each of the school years for 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. On September 13, 2005, Respondent was involved in a minor traffic accident while driving his school bus. There were no passengers on the bus at the time. After initially being unable to reach his supervisor on the radio, Respondent spoke with his supervisor and was instructed to complete his scheduled run. As a consequence of the accident, Respondent was required to submit to a drug and alcohol test. Both tests were negative. Pending the results for the test, however, Respondent was reassigned to office duty at Petitioner's south zone transportation department. Respondent was required to submit to a second drug and alcohol test on September 15, 2005. Respondent was working in the transportation office at the time. He had returned from lunch and was accused of smelling like he had consumed marijuana. He claimed that he simply had smoked a cigar during his lunch break. The drug and alcohol tests were negative. Respondent cooperated with the drug and alcohol testing in both instances. Notwithstanding, he believed he was being unfairly singled out and expressed this fact to Armando de Leon, the director of transportation for the south zone. On November 3, 2005, Respondent reported for duty around 5:00 a.m. He conducted his pre-trip check of the bus and discovered that the screws on the bracket of the passenger-side cross-over mirror, which assists the driver in observing students, who pass in front, and to the side of the bus, had come loose from the bus. Respondent did not record the problem on his pre-trip checklist, but instead drove the bus to the mechanic bay to have it repaired. Since September 2005, Respondent repeatedly had experienced a problem with the bracket of the passenger-side cross-over mirror becoming loose. It was repaired on several occasions both before and after November 3, 2005. Respondent showed the mechanic, David Deberardis, the problem with the mirror. Respondent and the mechanic both determined that it was safe to operate the bus in its existing condition, at least for Respondent's initial morning run. The mechanic instructed Respondent to return the bus to him after Respondent's first trip, and he would repair it at that time. Before commencing his run, Respondent repositioned the bracket of the mirror so it was temporarily operable. Only after his students disembarked at their destination at South Fort Myers High School did Respondent observe that the mirror bracket had again worked itself loose, and the mirror was hanging down from the bus. On November 3, 2005, in response to a citizen's anonymous complaint regarding Respondent's operating his bus erratically, Nena Garrett, the Petitioner's road safety supervisor, was assigned to surveil Respondent's bus. Garrett waited for Respondent at the bus ramp of South Fort Myers High School on November 3, 2005. She observed Respondent park his bus, get out of his bus, and speak to the driver of the bus in front of him. Garrett was convinced that the bus in front of her then intentionally blocked her access to the bus ramp. However, she was able to follow Respondent's bus and observed that Respondent activated the left turn signal, but made a right turn out of the school bus ramp and drove approximately two miles to the bus compound. When Respondent parked his bus at the south compound, Garret noticed that the front bumper of the bus on the passenger side was scraped and that the cross-over mirror bracket was detached from the holder. Garrett did not witness Respondent be involved in an accident; however, she saw the damaged mirror. She then reviewed Respondent's pre-trip inspection log, which indicated that everything on Respondent's bus was in working order. No damage to the bus was reported on the inspection log for that day. Bus operators are taught in training how to conduct a pre-trip inspection, and that if anything is wrong with the bus, it should be noted on the form. Respondent acknowledged that he attended such training and that he had received the Operator's, Assistant's and Monitor's Handbook, which includes requirement that bus operators are to conduct a pre-trip inspection daily. Respondent did not indicate on his pre-trip inspection log that there was any damage to the mirror or to the outside of the bus for the report submitted on November 3, 2005. Garrett did not observe anything of concern when Respondent exited his bus at the compound. However, Garrett confronted Respondent in the parking lot and asked how the cross-over mirror was broken. Respondent explained to Garrett that he had reported the loose mirror to the mechanic earlier that morning and that the mechanic told him to return to have it fixed after he completed the first run. Garrett conferred with the mechanic and confirmed that Respondent indeed had reported the problem with the mirror to him and that he told Respondent to proceed with his first run. The mechanic also confirmed that the condition of the mirror was not the result of an accident. Garrett testified that during the conversation with Respondent in the parking lot of the south compound, she observed the Respondent trip climbing the bus stairs. She also testified that his eyes were red and glassy and that he had pasty saliva coming from his mouth. Based on her experience as a teacher of drug and alcohol traffic education courses, she determined that something was wrong with Respondent and that he must be impaired. Garrett made the decision to contact the south zone director, Armando de Leon, to inform him that it appeared Respondent had been in an accident and that his appearance was suspicious. Garrett did not inform de Leon that she had talked to the mechanic. Following Garrett's phone call, de Leon arrived on the scene, and Garrett informed de Leon what she had witnessed. De Leon contacted Patrick Hayhurst, the district's safety inspector and deputy sheriff, to ascertain how he should proceed with searching the bus. Hayhurst advised de Leon to conduct the search. Respondent was advised that Garrett would be searching the bus. Respondent consented to the search and stated that he "had nothing to hide." Respondent claimed that he also requested union representation at that time, but his request was denied, and they proceeded with the search. During the search, a small grey briefcase was discovered on the floor resting against a partition behind the driver's seat. De Leon obtained Respondent's permission to search the briefcase. Among the contents of the briefcase, Garrett found a plastic card with scrape marks and a light brown, sticky powder stuck to it. She also found a Swiss army pocket knife. The pocket knife was a multi-tool devise with a knife blade estimated to be a two inch to two and a half inch blade, along with other tools. Respondent admitted to de Leon that the knife was his. He also admitted that he had placed the knife in the briefcase, but had forgotten it was there. In addition to the above items found in the briefcase, a transparent pen was also found with some type of residue on it. Respondent testified on direct examination that the pen was actually a mechanical pencil; however, on cross-examination he admitted that it was in fact a pen. Respondent had received the School Board's employee Handbook, which indicates the Petitioner's zero tolerance policy for weapons on school property. The policy reads as follows: Florida Statutes supports district procedures stating that persons shall not possess any firearm, electric weapon or electric devise, destructive devise or other weapon on the property of any school, any school bus stop, any facility having a school-sponsored activity, a district facility or any district property. Check with your site administrator for more specific procedures and for information regarding situations of this type at your worksite. Due to the observations made by Garrett and de Leon, it was determined that reasonable suspicion existed to administer a drug and alcohol screening of the Respondent; including, a test for Oxycontin. De Leon was aware that Respondent had been prescribed to take Oxycontin for pain-related injuries received in the past. De Leon testified that after the items were found on the bus, he contacted Hayhurst once again to determine what to do next. Hayhurst advised de Leon to contact the Lee County Sheriff's Office for the purpose of documenting what was discovered and to have the substance on the plastic card tested. De Leon then contacted the sheriff's office. Respondent was asked to come into de Leon's office. Once inside, Respondent was afforded the opportunity to contact a union representative. He spoke with Suzan Rudd, the executive director of SPALC, who told him to say as little as possible. A union representative did not arrive at de Leon's office prior to Respondent's departure. De Leon put the knife, pen barrel, and plastic card down on his office desk and went to advise Jack Shelton of what was taking place. When he returned to the office, the knife and plastic card were gone. Respondent had taken possession of both items. Upon request, Respondent returned the plastic card to de Leon, but retained the knife. De Leon then received a phone call advising him that a deputy had arrived. De Leon testified that at that moment Respondent's disposition changed, and he became extremely agitated and aggressive, and he advanced towards him. At this point, the testimony of the witnesses becomes very conflicted. However, the best evidence indicates that Respondent backed de Leon up against the wall near the corner of his office. Garrett stood up, and de Leon yelled for help. De Leon had his hands up above his head, and Respondent reached his hands toward de Leon's arms seeking to retrieve the plastic card. At that time, Shelton entered the room and, at Shelton's request, Respondent stepped away from de Leon. The testimony is inconsistent regarding the physical incident with de Leon. The testimony was that he stumbled into de Leon, shoved de Leon, fought with de Leon, or forcibly put his hands on de Leon. The testimony of Garrett, Shelton, and Giles corroborates de Leon's testimony that he had his hands in the air, and Respondent was forcibly making contact with de Leon's arms and/or hands against his will. Immediately following the incident with de Leon, Respondent announced that he was resigning his position. He was advised that there was a process for submitting a resignation, and that it cannot be done verbally. Once again, Respondent was advised that he was being asked to submit to a drug test, and he refused. Respondent admitted to observing the nurse, from the company used to conduct drug tests for Petitioner, on the compound prior to leaving the premises. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy John Kinsey testified that when he arrived at the scene, he proceeded to de Leon's office and observed a struggle going on. He obtained information about the incident from those present. He stated that he could have taken Respondent to jail for battery; however, he advised de Leon that his possession of the Respondent's plastic card could be considered petty theft. He testified that both parties thought better of pressing charges at that moment and moved on. Deputy Kinsey then conducted a swipe of the plastic card, which is less then a presumptive field test. The test would show for cocaine and any type of methamphetamine. The test was negative. Deputy Kinsey did not test for marijuana or Oxycontin. His visual observation of the plastic card was inconclusive as to illegal substances. Respondent looked medicated and disconnected from the world to Deputy Kinsey, like someone who had been taking pills. Based on his observation of Respondent, he advised Respondent not to drive home after leaving Petitioner's compound. Respondent ignored the deputy's advice and drove from the premises. Respondent withdrew his verbal resignation when he arrived home later that day, after he had an opportunity to confer with a union representative. Although both Garrett and de Leon overreacted to the incident, de Leon was authorized to require Respondent to take a drug and alcohol test, to test the plastic card for drug residue, and to consider the pocket knife a weapon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent without pay from his position as a bus operator with the Lee County School District from March 14, 2006, until the end of the 2005-2006 school year. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that should the School Board follow this recommendation to suspend Respondent rather than terminate him, it is within the sole discretion of the superintendent of the district to offer Respondent a new contract for the school year 2006-2007. See Cox v. School Board of Osceola County, 669 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2006, 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 August, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was reemployed as a substitute or hourly teacher on a noncontractual basis after he was retired for one month.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Board for several years as a driver's education teacher prior to his retirement. This position is a certificated teaching position under the rules of the State Department of Education. The operation of school buses in Duval County was and is done primarily by private companies, who are independent contractors and who, in turn, hire the bus drivers. Several years ago, the State of Florida required by law that all school bus drivers be certified as school bus drivers at the time of their initial employment. The Superintendent of Schools of Duval County instituted a program to certify its school bus drivers using Board personnel. Certificated driver's education teachers were asked to become qualified with the State to evaluate and test school bus drivers to insure that the drivers were in compliance with State law. Rule 6A-3.0141, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. All of the bus driver evaluators were driver's education instructors. Petitioner was one of the driver's education teachers who qualified and was employed to evaluate and test school bus drivers. The job of the Petitioner and other evaluators was to educate and test the drivers about the bus safety rules, to include "check" rides with drivers before certifying them. The school bus driver certification program is operated by the Board on a full-time basis, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. There is a written job description for the position of driver's education teacher which was not changed or amended to reflect the additional duties of bus driver evaluation. Prior to retiring, Petitioner worked as a driver's education teacher on a full-time basis (7 hours, 20 minutes per day) and performed the duties as evaluator and tester of the drivers after school and on Saturdays. He was paid a salary for his teaching duties and an additional amount for his services as bus driver evaluator. Although Petitioner received one compensation check, the payroll stub indicated regular and overtime pay. His additional compensation was calculated on the basis of hours actually worked and from the salary schedule for part-time teachers. Funding for regular work and overtime was charged to the same cost account, "1850", and all his pay was based upon his duties as a certified teacher in pay classification "0610." The payroll code for a driver's education teacher is "0610". The Board did not have a pay code for a bus driver evaluator. Evaluating bus drivers is an additional duty performed by driver's education teachers. Pay classification code "0610" is applicable to all driver's education teachers; and the Petitioner, as well as all of the driver's education teachers, was compensated from the instructional salary account of the Board. Although all bus driver evaluators were driver's education teachers, not all driver's education teachers were bus driver evaluators. Additional duty as a bus driver evaluator was voluntary, and driver's education teachers were paid additional compensation for performing these duties. Their entire pay, including the additional compensation, was charged to Responsibility Center No. 1850 - Driver's Education. Cost center code "1850" is a cost code associated with academic programs. Petitioner was rehired as a teacher after retirement and placed in pay category "0610". This was done because the only persons performing bus driver evaluations in Duval County are driver's education teachers, and no other classification or pay code is applicable. Petitioner was placed in salary code "0610", driver's education teacher. Messrs. Richard and Boney were Petitioner's supervisors and they did the administrative portion of certifying the drivers. Richard and Boney are "administrators" with the Board and not certificated or instructional personnel. A person is classified as a teacher on the basis of (a) the union collective bargaining agreement and (b) the rules of the Public Employees' Relation Commission. It is up to the supervisor to assign the person's duties. Those duties would determine the salary code from which the person would be paid. Petitioner retired under the FRS, effective July 1, 1989, and was placed on the FRS payroll on that date. In July of 1989, he completed a Board form by which he made himself available for reemployment. Petitioner was rehired in August as a driver's education teacher, pay classification "0610", cost center "1850". His supervisor assigned him duties as a bus driver evaluator and tester beginning on August 21, 1990. Petitioner worked part of the months of August, September and October of 1989 and was paid at the rate of $15.85 per hour, the same rate and from the same account as other hourly teachers, "1850". (Exhibit No. 6). While so employed, he could have taught the classroom phase of the evaluation program or could have been assigned to teach driver's education; however, Petitioner only did the road test and evaluation of bus drivers. Petitioner had the same duties relative to the bus drivers' evaluations and testing both before and after retirement. After retirement, the Petitioner had the same pay code and cost center he had had before his retirement. Although his assigned duties after retirement did not include driver's education, Petitioner did some of the same work that he had done before his retirement and was subject to being assigned student teaching duties. Inadvertently, the Board deducted retirement contributions from Petitioner's pay and reported the contributions to the Division of Retirement. (Exhibit No. 5). This precipitated an audit of the account; and the Division of Retirement concluded, based upon the data, that Petitioner was not employed as a teacher by the local school district.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that Division of Retirement take no action to collect the benefits paid to the retiree during the period of his reemployment by the Duval County School Board between August, September, and October 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 28 day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2424 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-8. Adopted. First portion adopted; last two sentences rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. First portion adopted; last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. Adopted, except first sentence, which was rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted, except last two sentences, which were rejected as statement of issues. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Albert A. Moss, Pro Se 111 Inwood Terrace Jacksonville, FL 32207 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue The 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 is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's employment with the Lee County School District for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the acting superintendent of schools for the Lee County School District. References to "Petitioner" shall include Petitioner's predecessors and the Lee County School Board. Petitioner originally hired Respondent as a school bus driver in September 1974. Respondent worked in this capacity for Petitioner for the ensuing 23 years, except for the 1988-89 school year. During the time in question, Respondent worked under an annual contract ending June 30, 1997. During the one-year period ending June 30, 1997, Petitioner entered into a contract with Child Care of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Child Care) for the use of school property, including school buses. The purpose of the contract is to establish a program under which Child Care transports and supervises schoolchildren in after-school and summertime daycare programs. Under the contract, Petitioner provides Respondent with school buses and bus drivers. The contract prohibits the operation of the buses by anyone other than drivers "assigned by [Petitioner]." The contract provides that Petitioner shall charge Child Care for the actual costs of operating the buses, the "drivers' hourly salary," and an additional mileage fee. The contract imposes on Child Care the responsibility of carrying motor vehicle liability insurance for Child Care and Petitioner. The contract requires that Child Care "observe all rules and regulations promulgated by the School Board for its operation of school buses." Petitioner's rules prohibit bus drivers from carrying firearms while on Petitioner's property. The employment contract between the parties also requires Respondent to abide by all state and local laws and rules. Petitioner assigned Respondent as one of the bus drivers under the Child Care contract for the Christmas break in December 1996. On the morning of December 30, 1996, Respondent carried a loaded .22-caliber pistol onto one of Petitioner's school buses. The pistol was in Respondent's jacket, which he placed beside the driver's seat. Respondent then drove his normal route, picking up children and transporting them to Petitioner's public school that, under the contract, Child Care was operating while school was not in session. After finishing his morning route, Respondent left the bus at the public school with the loaded pistol still inside the jacket beside the driver's seat. Late in the afternoon of the same day, Respondent reboarded the bus, allowed the schoolchildren to reenter the bus, and drove his normal route. The loaded pistol remained in the jacket on the bus throughout the afternoon route. Although not charged with the personal use of Petitioner's property, Respondent did not return the school bus after he completed his afternoon route. Instead, he transported his own children to the residence of his estranged wife where Respondent threatened the woman with the pistol. After threatening the woman, Respondent drove the school bus, while still armed with the loaded pistol, to Petitioner's bus lot, where Respondent parked the bus and was apprehended by police, who found the loaded pistol beside the driver's seat, but no longer in a jacket. Respondent knew throughout the day of December 30, 1996, that he was in possession of a loaded firearm while operating Petitioner's school bus.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment contract of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Hament Kevin J. Hubbart Kunkel Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 970 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Jack Taylor, Acting Superintendent Lee County Public Schools 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Respondent's employment as a school bus driver with the Pinellas County Schools should be terminated because of the matters alleged in the Superintendent's Charging Letter dated June 10, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, operated the system of public elementary and secondary education in Pinellas County Florida. Included within that function was the operation of the public school bus system. Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver. On May 8, 1996, Respondent was operating his school bus as required on the afternoon run from school to disembarkation points along the routes. According to several students who were riding the bus that day, a male student, otherwise identified only as Nick, was misbehaving on the bus by standing up while the bus was moving and being unnecessarily noisy. This conduct prompted a censure by the Respondent, who told the student to sit down and be quiet. When the bus reached the stop at Winding Wood Road, just off Countryside Boulevard, Nick, while disembarking from the bus, called the Respondent a "nigger." This was overheard by several students, one of whom, Stephanie Erin Clark, also was to disembark at that location. Erin and two other students, both of whom were seated in the front row of seats, one on each side of the bus, observed Respondent get up from the driver's seat and, while the bus' engine was still running, push other children who were on the bus steps out of the way and chase Nick down the side of the street in front of the bus. While Respondent was off the bus, it started to roll down the hill with students still aboard. This resulted in a frightening situation for many of the students, some of whom began to scream. After he had gone about 30 feet from the bus, Respondent apparently heard the screaming and stopped chasing Nick. When he saw the bus moving, he ran back to it, climbed aboard, resumed his seat and brought the bus to a stop. By this time it had traveled between ten and twenty feet from where he had left it. Fortunately, no one was hurt as a result of this incident. When he resumed his seat on the bus, Respondent was overheard by students in the seats immediately behind his to comment to himself words to the effect, "I'm going to get him and break his neck. He called me Nigger." When this matter was reported to the appropriate authorities, an investigation was conducted into the allegations which investigation confirmed the substance of those matters alleged. According to the Pinellas County Schools' Director of Transportation, Mr. Fleming, himself an African-American with many years experience in public school transportation, both with this agency and in Maryland, Respondent's actions were not appropriate. The most important figure in the bus driver program is the driver. He or she must control the bus and the students and remain with the bus at all times to insure the safety of the students. Mr. Fleming has handled situations similar to that shown here in a much different way. When a student commented about him in a racially derogative way, he returned the bus with the student aboard to the school and took the student to the principal for appropriate action. Mr. Fleming considers the proposed action in this case to be appropriate to the circumstances. The allegations in this matter were investigated by James Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, who found Respondent's misconduct to be so serious as to jeopardize the safety of the students entrusted to him. This constituted a severe lapse in judgement on the part of the driver and amounted to employee misconduct in office which justifies dismissal under the provision of Board policy 6Gx52-5.31, Section 1v.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County sustain the Superintendent's action of June 5, 1996 suspending Respondent without pay and, further, dismiss him from employment with the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Kieth B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Mr. Larry Jackson 1482 Franklin Street, Apt 7 Clearwater, Florida 34615 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may suspend Respondent for 30 calendar days without pay for driving a school bus while her driver license was suspended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a school bus driver for 14 years. In January, 2013, Respondent committed three toll violations. Initially, she could have paid $22.50 to have resolved these violations, but Respondent failed to do so. Unpaid, the violations matured into citations that required a court appearance. Respondent received a summons to appear in court on February 19, 2013, but Respondent failed to do so. Respondent then received a notice that her driver license would be suspended effective March 11, 2013. In late February, Respondent hired an attorney to clear up the matter. On February 28, the attorney appeared in court and obtained a disposition of the three citations. However, for some reason, the Clerk's office did not process the paperwork correctly, so the March 11 suspension was not lifted. On March 11, 2013, which was a Monday, Respondent reported to work and drove her bus. She did not conduct a driver license check prior to reporting to work, but she did so later that morning, at which time she learned that her license had been suspended. Respondent called her attorney and informed him that her license had been suspended. He said that it should not have been and, the next day, visited the Clerk's office and cleared up the confusion. After being suspended March 11-13, Respondent's driver license was reinstated without any costs effective March 14, 2013. In the meantime, knowing that her license had been suspended, Respondent drove her school bus on the afternoon of March 11. Due to the driver-license suspension, Respondent did not report to work on March 12, but she did on March 13 and, either knowing that her license was still suspended or in conscious disregard of the status of her license, drove the bus in the morning and afternoon. Petitioner's Handbook for School Bus Drivers, Aides and Operations Staff, dated July 2012 (Handbook), provides that drivers "must at all times maintain a valid Commercial Driver's License," and "[o]perating a bus with a suspended, expired, or revoked license shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal . . . ." Handbook, p. 10. School Board Policy 8600 incorporates by reference the Handbook. Also, the collective bargaining agreement covering Respondent acknowledges that noncompliance with any School Board policy, if not serious enough to warrant dismissal, may be a ground for suspension of the employee for up to 30 calendar days without pay.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent for 30 calendar days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2014, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Sara M. Marken, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Barbara A. Roberts 3120 Northwest 161st Street Miami Gardens, Florida 33054 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Pasco County ("Respondent") is an "employer" for purposes of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 ("Act"). At all times material to this case, the Respondent has had a nondiscrimination policy and a policy prohibiting sexual harassment in effect. The policies are provided to all employees, including the Petitioner, upon hiring, and are posted throughout the workplace. Denise E. Hoedt ("Petitioner") at all times material to this case was a bus driver employed by the Respondent. As of the date of the hearing, the Petitioner was on worker's compensation leave. There is no evidence that the worker's compensation leave is related to the allegations at issue in this case. When the Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent she was assigned to a regular bus route and was stationed in the "Northwest Garage" unit of the Respondent's transportation system. After having been employed for a sufficient period of time, she was provided with a contractual right to choose her route. She chose to transport exceptional education (ESE) students. As an ESE driver, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Dennis. Ms. Dennis did not work in the same garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner has been involved in a continuing series of grievances against Mr. Valentine Gallas, a "Route Specialist" for the Respondent. The grievances, filed prior to the complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations at issue in this proceeding, have been directed towards her discontent with work assigned to her by Mr. Gallas. Although Mr. Gallas was not the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, as a Route Specialist located in the Northwest Garage, he had supervisory authority over the Petitioner, as did Joanne Snodgrass, another Route Specialist in the same facility. One of the prior grievances was directed towards his request that she assume responsibility for opening a large metal gate at the entrance of the bus storage compound. The complaint was resolved by an agreement that she would not be asked to open the gate. Upon being requested by a different official to drive a later route and take responsibility to close the gate, the Petitioner complied with the request. Although she did not continue to drive the later route, there is no evidence that her decision was related to the request regarding gate closure. Another grievance centered on Mr. Gallas' directive that she drive a second bus run after she had completed her initial run. Mr. Gallas apparently did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room prior to the second run. The Petitioner filed a grievance about the matter which was resolved by an agreement that, prior to being asked to take an additional route, she would be provided with a rest room break. The Petitioner asserted that because Mr. Gallas assigned her to a bus with a poor driver's seat, her back was injured. There is no credible evidence to establish that the seat caused or contributed to the claimed back injury. The Petitioner suggested that the clock in the bus driver's lounge was tampered with and resulted in her being reprimanded for tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the clock was intentionally tampered with to cause the Petitioner to be reprimanded. There is no evidence that any of the prior disputes between the Petitioner and Mr. Gallas were related to the Petitioner's gender or national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was driving a regular bus route, Mr. Gallas was responsible for her work assignments. When she began to drive an ESE route, she was no longer directly responsible to Mr. Gallas. In January 1993, the Petitioner, via a union representative, contacted school board officials and voiced her dissatisfaction with Mr. Gallas' alleged behavior. Late in January 1993, the Petitioner, accompanied by the union representative, met in an interview with the school board's personnel investigator. At the interview, the Petitioner stated that she believed she had been discriminated against on account of her gender and ethnic origin, and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Mr. Gallas. During the interview, the investigator attempted to obtain allegations of specific conduct, but other than as stated herein, the Petitioner was unable to offer such allegations. Although during the interview, the Petitioner alleged that Mr. Gallas had made derogatory comments regarding her ethnic origin and her weight, the only specific incident of which the Petitioner spoke was Mr. Gallas' alleged remark to her, "Oh, a Cuban." She offered no context for the remark. There was no specific remark regarding weight disclosed during the interview. The Petitioner also alleged that subsequent to Mr. Gallas' purchase of beverages for a group of bus drivers, he had repeatedly said she "owed him one" in a manner which the Petitioner interpreted as sexual. The remark continued until such time as the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas. Further, the Petitioner alleged that in November 1992, Mr. Gallas came into the bus drivers' lounge and handed her an offensive written statement regarding intercourse which she interpreted as a request for sex. The investigator inquired as to whether Mr. Gallas had touched the Petitioner. She replied he had not. There was no mention of any other alleged inappropriate activity by Mr. Gallas towards the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the interview, the investigator expressed her concern about the serious nature of the charges. She assured the Petitioner that there would be no retaliation for the report of the complaints. She noted that the findings of the investigation would be confidential and requested that the Petitioner refrain from discussing the allegations pending the investigation. The investigator began her inquiry the day after meeting with the Petitioner. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Gallas and with other persons who were aware of Mr. Gallas and the operation of the Northwest Garage. As to the investigator's request that the Respondent refrain from discussing the matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with this request. The matter became fodder for discussion in the workplace. A petition was initiated by several employees on Mr. Gallas' behalf. The Petitioner attempted to initiate her own petition drive without success. The matter was viewed by some coworkers as an attempt by the Petitioner to have Mr. Gallas' employment terminated. The investigator for the Respondent viewed the Petitioner's allegations with skepticism due to the "vagueness" of the specifics. The failure of the Petitioner to comply with the request to keep the matter confidential during the investigation did little to alleviate the investigator's initial concerns about the Petitioner's credibility. Despite the continuing controversy, the school board attempted to complete its investigation of the matters about which the Petitioner had complained. In an interview with the investigator, Mr. Gallas denied the charges. He stated that the remark regarding her origin occurred in the context of a discussion between the Petitioner and another driver overheard by Mr. Gallas, at which time the remark was made. He denied making any reference to her weight. Although acknowledging that he had seen the "intercourse" card in the garage, he denied having handed it to her. He denied any sexual intent in the "owe me one" remark. Other interviews were conducted with other persons who are knowledgeable about the operations of the Northwest Garage and Mr. Gallas' employment there. The investigator was unable to substantiate the allegations. Based on a review of the Petitioner's interview and allegations, Mr. Gallas' denial, and the inability to find further substantiation for the complaints, the investigator determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the complaints were credible. After the investigation and determination were completed, there was a time delay in providing notification of the determination to the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that the delay was not an attempt to deprive the Petitioner of any contractual or legal right but was due to nothing more than clerical error on the part of the personnel investigator. There is no evidence that there was any harm to the Petitioner related to the delay. In May 1993, the Petitioner filed the complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) which is at issue in this proceeding. As identified in the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner's allegations are addressed as follows: The November 1992 "intercourse" card incident-- The Petitioner asserts that in November 1992, as she was seated with two other bus drivers in the driver's lounge, Mr. Gallas entered the lounge, walked to the table where the Petitioner and her coworkers sat, and handed a card titled "intercourse" to the Petitioner. The card was an offensive attempt at humor and included a sexual invitation. Of the two coworkers at the table, only one saw the card. The Petitioner refused to permit the other coworker to see the card. All of the women testified at the hearing. Although the Respondent presented the investigator's recollection of Mr. Gallas' denial of the incident, Mr. Gallas was not called by either party to testify at the hearing. The testimony of the two drivers who were at the table when the incident occurred and who testified at the hearing substantiates the Petitioner's allegation. There is no credible evidence that prior to her January 1993 complaint about the incident, the Petitioner discussed the matter with any other person. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' behavior regarding the "intercourse" card incident, although offensive and inappropriate, caused the Petitioner difficulty in performing her job duties or any other harm or injury. Offensive touching of the Petitioner by Mr. Gallas-- The Petitioner asserts that Mr. Gallas occasionally would stand too close to her and that on one occasion, he brushed against her breasts in passing her. There is no evidence that, prior to the filing of the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner had ever complained about unwarranted or offensive touching by Mr. Gallas. Upon direct inquiry by the school board's personnel investigator, the Petitioner denied that she had been touched by Mr. Gallas. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. Mr. Gallas' sexual requests of the Petitioner-- There is no credible evidence that Mr. Gallas made any verbal sexual requests of the Petitioner. The only incident which may be viewed as a sexual invitation relates to the "intercourse" card addressed previously in this Recommended Order. The Petitioner "owed" Mr. Gallas-- The evidence establishes that at a luncheon attended by coworkers, Mr. Gallas purchased beverages for the group and made a statement to the effect that the recipients "owed him one." Mr. Gallas would occasionally repeat his "you owe me one" statement to the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the statement was made in a sexual manner or that such was intended by Mr. Gallas. Eventually, the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas, stating "now I don't owe you one." After being bought a drink, Mr. Gallas no longer made the remark. Verbal slurs about the Petitioner's national origin-- The Petitioner is of Mexican, Spanish and Cuban origin. The Petitioner asserts that on one occasion, she became embroiled in an argument with Mr. Gallas during which he remarked, "Oh, You're nothing but a Cuban." There is no other evidence to support her assertion. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Mr. Gallas made such remarks to other employees or that such conversation was typical of him. The assertion is not credible. Terms and conditions of her employment-- The Petitioner asserts that the "terms and conditions' of her employment were different from other bus drivers with responsibilities similar to hers. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Drivers transporting ESE students generally have fewer students to transport than drivers of regular routes. It is possible that an ESE driver may transport only one or two children. ESE drivers often complete their routes before drivers of regular routes. Because the Petitioner was responsible for transportation of ESE students, her route was often completed earlier than other bus drivers. ESE drivers who have completed their routes may "stay on the clock" in which case they may be asked to provide assistance in clerical tasks or to complete other bus routes. In the alternative, drivers may "punch out" and leave. Additional work is assigned to drivers by the Route Specialist in the garage from which the drivers are based. Mr. Gallas was the Route Specialist in the garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner frequently remained on the clock and was accordingly assigned additional work to do. There is no evidence that any drivers who remained "on the clock" were treated any differently that was the Petitioner. On one afternoon, the Petitioner, suffering from back pain, returned from her route and laid down in her bus. Mr. Gallas came onto the vehicle and told her that she needed to be working. He suggested that she could be made to sweep the bus compound if she did not find other duties to complete. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner, who was on the payroll at the time she was resting in her bus, informed Mr. Gallas that she was not feeling well. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' actions upon discovering the Petitioner at rest in her bus were related to her gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. There is no evidence that other drivers were permitted, while on duty, to rest in their busses. As previously addressed, on one occasion, Mr. Gallas directed the Petitioner, immediately upon her return from her normal bus run, to perform additional transportation duties. Mr. Gallas did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room before beginning her second run. Subsequent to her complaint to appropriate authorities, Mr. Gallas was directed to permit the Petitioner to use the rest room before assigning additional responsibilities to her. Although Mr. Gallas' lack of concern about the Petitioner's personal needs was inconsiderate, the evidence fails to establish that the incident was related to gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. The Petitioner also asserts that other drivers or their spouses are permitted to bring personal vehicles into the bus compound and that she was not. The evidence fails to establish that other drivers or their spouses are routinely permitted to bring personal vehicles into the compound. The Petitioner complained that during a heavy storm one day, her husband came into the compound to pick her up and was asked to take his vehicle back outside the compound. On that day, Mr. Gallas offered to walk the Petitioner with an umbrella to her car but she declined. The Respondent's inquiry into the January 1993 grievance-- The Petitioner asserts that the school board's inquiry into her January 1993 grievance was incomplete and that the determination that the grievance was unfounded was inappropriate. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's complaints, as they were communicated to the school board, were as fully investigated as was possible. The Petitioner's complaints to the Board did not include allegations related to unwarranted touching, according such allegations were not investigated. Further, the investigation was hampered by the spread of rumor and innuendo throughout the workplace regarding the Petitioner's sexual harassment allegations. Although the evidence is not entirely clear as to where responsibility lies for the generation of the rumor and internal bickering, school board personnel involved in the investigation specifically directed the Petitioner to refrain from discussing the allegations pending the board's investigation. As previously stated, she failed to comply with this request. Coworkers of the Petitioner were also involved in discussion about the pending investigation. At that point, the workplace appears to have become divided into factions and the board's investigation was compromised. The evidence establishes that the board's investigation of the Petitioner's grievance was conducted appropriately and that persons with direct knowledge related to the allegations (including Mr. Gallas who was inexplicably not called by either party to testify at the hearing) were contacted and interviewed. Although the investigation became compromised and was completed prematurely, there is no evidence that based on the information obtained by board personnel, the board's determination that the grievance was unfounded was outside the authority of the board or unsupported by the information which the board had obtained The Petitioner seeks to be "reimbursed for all the pain and suffering I have endured...." The evidence fails to establish that such an award is appropriate. The Petitioner offered no evidence related to "pain and suffering" or which would establish that such injury, if present, is related to employment conditions. The Petitioner also seeks to be reimbursed "for any and all money which was used to seek legal consultation." There is no evidence that the Petitioner, who has represented herself throughout this proceeding, has incurred any expenses related to legal consultation regarding this complaint; therefore such an award is not appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed in this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th of June, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6652 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Proposed finding of fact paragraph six continues for approximately seven pages and consists largely of recitation of conflicting testimony. The testimony has been reconciled as indicated in this Recommended Order. The proposed finding is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, immaterial and not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 8-9. Rejected, subordinate. 10-16. Rejected, unnecessary. This unnumbered proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior" by Mr. Gallas and is treated as follows: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive testimony: a. Rejected as irrelevant: c, b, e. Rejected as immaterial: d, f, g, h. This proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Mr. Valentine Gallas and Ms. Denise Hoedt" and is treated as follows: Rejected, there is no credible evidence that the offer of an umbrella was "inappropriate sexual behavior b, k. Rejected, immaterial l, m, n, o. Accepted as modified. Remainder is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence: a, g. Rejected, subordinate: d, h, i. Rejected, irrelevant: f. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner or her husband have been subjected to restrictions regarding personal cars within the bus compound which are not generally applicable to all drivers, except when specific circumstances require otherwise. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected as to Pyles' attendance at meeting, unnecessary. Rejected as to note taking by the investigator, unnecessary. 12-13. Rejected, unnecessary. 16-18. Rejected, subordinate. 23-33. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. 34. Rejected as to ulterior motives of Petitioner, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Weightman, Superintendent Pasco County School System 7227 Land O' Lakes Blvd. Land O' Lakes, Florida 34639-2805 Denise E. Hoedt 11605 U. S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Mark Graves, Esquire 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
