The Issue Whether the School Board should terminate or take other disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joe Thomas Alford, Jr., started working for the Bay County School Board in 1980, as a substitute school bus driver. His first full-time position with the School Board was as a "gasoline attendant," a position he assumed in 1981. After Larry Daniels became superintendent of transportation in July of 1985, he granted Mr. Alford's request to be permitted to resume driving a school bus. By all accounts, Mr. Alford did a good job as a full-time bus driver through the end of the school year 1986-87, except for the day he received a speeding ticket while driving a school bus. On another occasion, he exhibited great courage, even heroism, as one of the drivers in a convoy returning from an athletic contest. When the lead bus had an accident that made it impossible for students to get out of the bus in the usual way, Mr. Alford climbed in through a window and kicked out the emergency door, leaking gas tank notwithstanding. 1987-88 On the morning of October 16, 1987, Mr. Alford failed to report for work to drive school bus No. 340 on its three accustomed runs, necessitating the tardy dispatch of another driver. Later, in response to Mr. Daniels' questions, he explained that Harry Wells, a substitute school bus driver, had agreed to drive for him on the morning of the 16th (among other times), with the understanding that Mr. Alford would drive on a field trip for Mr. Wells. It was to an apparent misunderstanding that Mr. Alford attributed his absence without giving notice or arranging for a substitute on October 16, 1987. At the time, school board procedure required a bus driver who was to be absent for any reason to arrange for a substitute, as Mr. Alford apparently thought he had done, and to report the arrangement to the payroll clerk at the office of the superintendent of transportation. But the agreement went unreported, and no approval of the exchange was ever obtained. On October 26, 1987, Mr. Daniels, then superintendent of transportation, and Patricia Holland, route manager for routes including those Mr. Alford drove, Harry Wells and Mr. Alford gathered to discuss the lack of coverage on October 16, 1987. Mr. Alford told everybody present about his plan to drive on a field trip November 6, 1987, which would necessitate his missing the afternoon runs that day. He said (and Mr. Wells was there to deny it, if it had not been true) that Mr. Wells had agreed to substitute for him on the afternoon of November 6, 1987. Eventually this information reached Janet, who logged in Mr. Wells as a substitute for the afternoon runs on November 6, 1987. On the morning of November 6, however, Mr. Alford failed to appear, again without giving notice and without arranging for a substitute. Again it was necessary to make belated arrangements for another driver. Later that morning, Mr. Alford telephoned to report that his wife had locked him out of his house, and that he had lost access to his personal effects. He said that personal problems had prevented his driving that morning, and explained that, without clothes, he would be unable to drive on the field trip that afternoon, as well. In the afternoon, a substitute drove in his stead, without any report of inconvenience to anybody who went on the field trip. On Monday, February 8, 1988, somebody called from Mowat Junior High School with word that school bus No. 340 had not arrived as of quarter past two that afternoon. Ordinarily, and according to schedule, the bus arrived at the school by two o'clock, was loaded by five past, then left Mowat on the first of three runs the bus made each afternoon. When the report that school bus No. 340 had not arrived at Mowat reached the transportation office, Mr. Carter looked in the bus barn out back and saw that the bus was still there. He himself, despite his supervisory position as route manager for the Rutherford district, made two of the three runs for which Mr. Alford was responsible, while another driver drove children home from Hiland Park school. At no time on Monday afternoon did Mr. Alford communicate with the transportation office or with any of his supervisors or with anybody else employed by the school board. When he reported to work on Tuesday morning, he set out in school bus No. 340, without speaking to anybody in the transportation office. His supervisor, Patricia Holland, called Mr. Griffin, the assistant principal in charge of loading and unloading buses at Mowat and asked him to tell Mr. Alford to telephone. Later in the day Mr. Alford did call. He said he had missed work the afternoon before because, coming back from Tyndall Air Force Base, he had had a flat tire. He said he had given a hitchhiker (who he purportedly picked up just before the problem with the tire) 50 cents for a telephone call and asked him to call the school board's transportation office to say he could not get to work. He also said that he was worried about his wife and believed that she had a tumor in her arm. But nobody had telephoned the day before and, for the third time, respondent was orally reprimanded for not reporting for work and failing to give notice beforehand. At a meeting with his supervisors later in February of 1988, Mr. Alford declined to sign a document reciting these three lapses in his attendance record, although assigning the wrong date to one of them. No contemporaneous, independent, written records of counseling on October 16 and November 6 were prepared. On the morning of April 7, 1988, Mr. Tucker of Mosley High School called at half past seven to report that school bus No. 340 was late. As he spoke, it arrived, although it had been due at 6:55 a.m. Unmollified, Mr. Tucker complained that such a late arrival was disruptive because a number of the children ate breakfast at the school and had to be fed, even if they were late. Respondent's supervisors discussed these matters with him that day, and a record was made of the counseling on April 7, 1988. 1988-89 Before students returned for the next school year, all bus drivers hired for the 1988-89 term attended a meeting. In the future, the school bus drivers were told, they should report to the route manager for their district in an emergency or if, for some other reason, they would be unable to appear for work. Rather than making arrangements themselves, they were advised, they should let the route manager contact a substitute. On the morning of October 12, 1988, at quarter of seven, Clarice Rehberg, the route manager for the Bay High School District (which is not the district in which Mr. Alford's route was located) received a telephone call from Mr. Alford, who said that he was in Pensacola, and that his car had broken down. He also told her that school bus No. 340 was in the shop for repair, so that a substitute driver would need another bus. Finally, he let her know that the first scheduled pickup was to have been five minutes earlier at the cemetery on 17th Street. Despite Ms. Rehberg's prompt action, school children on all three runs to Mosley and Hiland Park were late for school that day. At all pertinent times, school bus drivers, including substitutes, were required to make a pre-trip inspection, which sometimes takes fifteen minutes, before driving a school bus in the morning. The following morning at about five o'clock Ms. Rehberg received a second telephone call from Mr. Alford, who again reported that he was calling from Pensacola. He said that he had called Harvey Childress in hopes that Harvey would substitute for him that morning, but that Harvey told him that he was already driving. As the "barn book" reflected, Ms. Rehberg had already scheduled Mr. Childress to drive Mr. Alford's route, morning and afternoon, just as he had done the day before. It was just as well Ms. Rehberg had the foresight to arrange for Mr. Childress to drive that afternoon because Mr. Alford never showed up. On Thursday, October 13, 1988, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Enterkin, who also drove a school bus for the Bay County School Board, spotted Mr. Alford and two friends in a car waiting at a stop sign. During the ensuing conversation, Mr. Alford told Mr. Enterkin that he was taking the rest of the week off. He also said something about having to go to Pensacola because he could not get the lights fixed on his new car. On Thursday afternoon, Mr. Alford telephoned Mr. Conway, the new supervisor of transportation, telling him that he was at a service station in Pensacola waiting for money to be wired to fix his car. On October 14, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Alford called and said that he was ready to go back to work. Mr. Conway asked him to come see him before he reported for any further duties as a bus driver. Missing a three o'clock appointment the following Tuesday, Mr. Alford appeared in Mr. Conway's office at three o'clock on Wednesday, saying that he must have gotten the days mixed up. The conversation between the men was short, to the point, and unpleasant. Mr. Conway suspended Mr. Alford with pay. On October 26, 1988, the school board suspended him without pay. The present proceedings followed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner terminate respondent's employment. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0634 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, it was not clear that he needed approval from anybody other than the substitute at that time. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19 is properly a conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 15, 16, 23, and 26 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 28 through 31, and 32 pertain to immaterial matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact No. 10, 14, 17 through 20, 22, 27, and 33 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence did not show any understanding that Mr. Wells had agreed to take the morning run on November 6, 1987. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, there was no morning route to Perry, and he supposedly stayed with the car. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 the respondent did not give notice he was going to be absent. The hearing officer has not seen a hearing transcript. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the weight of the evidence showed he did not place a call to Ms. Holland on October 12, 1988. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the route was not "covered" on time. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, respondent did not tell Ms. Rehberg in advance that he was not going to report for the afternoon run on October 12, 1989. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 34, the evidence demonstrated knowing, intentional disregard of instructions to let people know of impending absences far enough ahead of time for other arrangements to be made. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 35 is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson Superintendent of Bay County Schools 5205 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32401 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison Sale, Smoak, Harrison, Sale McCloy & Thompson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32401 Pamela L. Cooper Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in employment practices in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Euretha L. Davies, is a white female, who was first employed by Respondent, Laidlaw Educational Services (Laidlaw), in 1997 as a school bus driver. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Respondent provides pursuant to contract school bus transportation in Santa Rosa County School District. This includes all aspects of transportation: training drivers, maintaining vehicles, preparing routes and administering the system, and preparing reports to state and federal authorities. Petitioner had been an employee of the Santa Rosa County School District for nine years prior to Laidlaw contracting to provide these services in 1997. She transferred her employment to Laidlaw at that time, maintaining her senority and pay rate. On January 4, 2000, Petitioner contacted Jeffrey R. Capozzi, Driver Development and Safety Supervisor for Laidlaw at their office in Milton, Florida, about pain she was experiencing in both her wrists. She was sent to Immediate Care at West Florida Medical Center, Pensacola, Florida. There, she was seen by Kenneth Hill, M.D., an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Hill performed surgery to release the carpal tunnel in the right wrist on May 23, 2000. On August 24, 2000, a follow-up evaluation of the right had revealed that soft support of the wrist was needed, but Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement with a one percent partial impairment. Petitioner was released to full duties. On May 2001, an annual check up was done in order to maintain Petitioner's entitlement to future workman's compensation medical treatment. This examination was performed by James St. Louis, M.D., who took over Petitioner's case when Dr. Hill moved. Dr. St. Louis ordered nerve conduction studies of the right upper extremity, which was performed on July 30, 2001, by Dr. Gerhard. Dr. Gerhard found that the transmittal of nerve impulses was normal in the right upper extremity and left median nerve. On May 2, 2002, approximately a year later and after Petitioner had had a nerve conduction study, she was sent to see Michael L. Shawbitz, M.D., a neurological specialist. Dr. Shawbitz concluded that she had tendonitis in her right wrist and recommended physical therapy. On May 15, 2002, Petitioner was given a Dexterity Test for School Bus Drivers by Lillian Barnes, which Petitioner passed. On June 5, 2002, Dr. T. F. Brown gave Petitioner a physical, which she passed. On August 6, 2002, Petitioner returned to work when school started, driving a school bus with an automatic door opener. On September 4-6, 2002, Petitioner began training to become a driver trainer. Her instructor was Zeke Zeigler, a training director for Laidlaw. From September 9 through 13, 2002, Petitioner attended classroom training presented by Stephanie Slaton, who was in charge of Driver Safety and Development at the Laidlaw office in Milton, Florida. At this time, Petitioner was driving her bus seven hours and 35 minutes each day on a regular schedule. On September 16 through 20, 2002, Petitioner completed the classroom training and was scheduled to go on the road training with the trainer who fit into her schedule. At this time, Dianne Hall, Head of Routing and Data Entry, requested that Petitioner be taken off her driving schedule to assist in preparation of the report prepared by Laidlaw for the State of Florida on bus schedules and routes for the children in the district. Petitioner was taken off her bus to assist with this report, and when it was completed, she was to continue coming into the office between the morning and afternoon bus routes to keep information in the data system updated and correct. This data entry amounted to several hours of light typing daily. On October 15, 2002, Petitioner was informed that she had an appointment to see Dr. Minoo Hollis, for Petitioner's annual checkup on her workman's compensation injury. This examination was conducted on October 17, 2002. Dr. Hollis determined that Petitioner had tenosynovitis of the right flexor, a ganglion cyst of the left wrist volar ganglion, and diffused chronic pain of the left forearm and wrist. Dr. Hollis prescribed medication and physical therapy for Petitioner and put her on light duty not driving a school bus. On October 23, 2002, Petitioner started physical therapy at Santa Rosa Medical Center three times per week for three weeks. Petitioner continued to work at the school office and to make entries into the computer system. Petitioner was assigned to the school office where she worked on various projects. She did light typing, copied documents for the school staff, and handled mail. There is a conflict in testimony regarding whether these assignments were in pursuit of assisting with the data entry or were the result of light duty because of Dr. Hollis' findings. It is found that at the point Petitioner ceased driving the bus, it was the result of the light duty assignment. These light duties continued until December 10, 2002, when Petitioner was assigned to Pace High School (PHS) where the assistant principal, Bradley Marcilliat, was delegated authority to assign her duties. Upon her assignment to PHS, Petitioner's hours per week were reduced to 30, and her typing was restricted further by her supervisors at Laidlaw. On December 12, 2002, Dr. Hollis did a follow-up examination of Petitioner after physical therapy and found that she had a two percent permanent partial impairment and prescribed the following restrictions as they relate to her bus driving duties: Can sit, stand, and walk without interruption for eight hours; Reach above shoulder level frequently Can use hands for repetitive actions such as: Simple grasping-both hands Pushing and pulling-right hand no; left hand yes Restrictions of activities involving: Unprotected heights-none Moving machinery-none Changes in temperature and humidity-none Driving automotive equipment-none Restrictions to automatic transmission-yes Fumes and gas-none On December 12, 2002, Jennifer Jack, MSN, RN, who was the case manager employed by Genex Services, Inc., for Crawford and Company, Respondent's workman's compensation insurer, reported to Stephanie Slaton that Petitioner could drive a vehicle with automatic transmission per Dr. Hollis. Ms. Jack opined, "I am not sure if driving the bus requires any repetitive pulling, but if it does not, then it looks like Ms. Davies can drive a school bus." A question existed about whether Petitioner could operate the automatic door opener on the school bus, which required the driver to pull a knob with the right hand. Ms. Jack queried Dr. Hollis, and was told Petitioner could drive a bus with an automatic door opener. On December 24, 2002, Crawford and Company informed Petitioner that she would be paid one percent as the difference between the one percent she had initially been paid, and her current permanent impairment of the body as a whole. Petitioner continued her duties at PHS until January 31, 2003. Nothing was said about her returning to her normal bus driving duties, although she had been released by her doctor to return to work with the limitations stated above. On January 31, 2003, Petitioner was advised by personnel at PHS to report to Bobbie Williams' office at Laidlaw at 10:30 that morning. When she reported to Williams, he gave her a dismissal letter, and stated that Laidlaw had been informed by the insurance company that she had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to her injury that had occurred on January 4, 2000, and that with her current restrictions she was no longer able to perform essential requirement necessary to drive a school bus. This determination was based upon the Laidlaw's determination that Petitioner could not operate the automatic door opener on the school bus. This conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented by Petitioner that she had operated the door without problem before she developed the tendonitis, and contrary to Dr. Hollis' reports and the information provided to Ms. Jack by the doctor. Although the record shows that Petitioner continued to improve as revealed in her May 2003 examination, the fact that the doctor indicated that Petitioner had a permanent impairment of two percent in December 2002 indicates that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement as of that date. The facts reveal that Petitioner was ready to return to work; was discharged by Respondent because of an alleged inability to open the door of the bus; that Petitioner was able to open the door of a bus equipped with an automatic door opener; and that the "inability to perform the duties of the job" asserted by Respondent were not supported by the medical restrictions communicated to Respondent's agent, who made that information known to Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter its final order directing that Respondent desist from discriminatory employment practices and directing Respondent to re-employ with appropriate accommodation Petitioner, promote her to a trainer-driver, and cease any further discriminatory practices. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 4th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Euretha Davies 3404 Oaktree Lane Pace, Florida 32571 Danny K. Guerdon Laidlaw Education Services 975 Cobb Place Boulevard, Suite 218 Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations grant Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was born on March 31, 1936, in Trinidad- Tobago. He migrated to the United States in 1974. In or around May 1993, when he was 57 years old, Petitioner applied for a position as a school bus driver with Respondent and was subsequently hired. Respondent is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public instruction and related services, including transportation services, to school-aged children in the county. Respondent provides transportation services through its Transportation Department. Jerry Klein has headed the Transportation Department (as its Administrative Director) since 1993. The Transportation Department operates eight transportation centers throughout the county. Assigned to these eight transportation centers are a total of approximately 1,530 school bus drivers, who range in age from 22 to 77, with most being over 40. The current job description for the position of school bus driver has been in effect since March 9, 1999. It provides that school bus drivers must meet the following "physical requirements" and "minimum qualifications requirements": PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS This is light work which requires the following physical activities: sitting, standing, walking, climbing, twisting, reaching, grasping, talking, hearing and visual acuity. Heavy lifting, pushing, and pulling may occasionally be required. Work is performed indoors and outdoors and worker is subject to noise, heat, fumes and vibration. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS Must hold a valid Commercial Driver's License, have a minimum of five (5) years licensed driving experience, and have an excellent driving record. Must be able to pass the examinations and tests required by the State of Florida to obtain a Class B Commercial Driver's License with a Passenger Transport Endorsement, without air brake restriction. Must have an acceptable background check. Must be able to pass a prescribed reflex test, physical examination, and drug test. Must be able to deal with stressful situations on a frequent basis. Must have completed eighth grade and have a demonstrated ability to read, write, and understand written instructions in English. High school diploma or GED preferred. Must be able to pass the Basic School Bus Training Course given by Miami-Dade County Public Schools Department of Transportation in accordance with Rule 6A- 3.0141 of the State of Florida Board of Education.[2] Good knowledge of county geography. In 1993, in response to "several media reports" that some of its school bus drivers "were driving with suspended licenses and [had] other types of problems with their driving record[s]," Respondent developed and reduced to writing criteria to be used to screen the driving records of applicants for school bus driver positions (Screening Criteria), criteria which, in all material respects, it still uses today. The document in which these Screening Criteria are set forth is entitled, "Screening of Driving Records for Prospective School Bus Drivers for M-DCPS and Private Company Drivers," and it reads, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * Each individual's transcript of Driver Record will be screened in accordance with the guidelines and criteria established by this document. The entire driving record will be checked for purposes of determining an individual's acceptability or unacceptability to drive a school bus for M-DCPS. The screening process will be conducted prior to employment for M-DCPS drivers and annually as part of the annual re-certification for all drivers operating under contract to M-DCPS. Points will be assigned for each entry on the Transcript of Driver Record in accordance with the Appendix attached to this document, and Paragraph 2 above. Individuals will not be approved to drive a school bus for M-DCPS if they have: More than three (3) district assigned points during the past year More than six (6) points during the past three (3) years More than nine (9) points during the past five (5) years or More than twenty five (25) district assigned points total, on the entire record. * * * 6. The Administrative Director, Department of Transportation, or his designee, may make exception to the guidelines above, as circumstances warrant. Drivers who are disqualified under the above guidelines may further appeal the decision to the Chief Business Officer. * * * APPENDIX DRIVING VIOLATION POINTS ASSESSED BY DISTRICT VIOLATION POINTS SPEEDING UP TO 14 MPH OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT 3 15 MPH OR MORE, OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT 4 IN A SCHOOL ZONE 3 DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS 3 * * * FAILING TO COMPLY WITH STOP SIGN 3 FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC INSTRUCTION/DEVICE 3 * * * IMPROPER TURNING 3 * * * SEAT BELT VIOLATION . . . . 1 CARELESS OR IMPROPER DRIVING 3 * * * 22. AT-FAULT ACCIDENT 2 * * * Note: The district assesses points under this plan for all entries, regardless of conviction status or state disposition. Although Mr. Klein, as the Transportation Department's Administrative Director, has had the authority to "make exception[s]" to these Screening Criteria, he has never done so. Petitioner worked as an hourly school bus driver from June 10, 1993, until January 1994, when he became a full-time school bus driver, a position he held for approximately seven and a half years.3 During his employment as a school bus driver with Respondent, Petitioner was involved in several vehicular accidents while on duty in his school bus. After one such accident, which occurred on August 9, 1999, Petitioner was suspended without pay by Respondent for failing to report the accident.4 The suspension began February 10, 2000, and ended March 13, 2000. Petitioner's most recent accident as a school bus driver occurred March 26, 2001. Because the accident was deemed to have been "preventable," Petitioner was directed to complete retraining before resuming his school bus driver duties. Petitioner began his retraining on May 16, 2001. He was unable to successfully complete the retraining, although given adequate time and a fair opportunity to do so. On June 5, 2001, after Petitioner had had eight days of retraining5 (one in the classroom and seven on the road), Richard Rothberg, a Coordinator II for Operations and Training with Respondent, advised Petitioner that he "wasn't meeting the qualifications" to remain a school bus driver and asked him if he "would be willing to accept a demotion to a bus aide position so that he could retain his employment with [Respondent]." Mr. Rothberg told Petitioner that if he rejected the offer of a demotion, Petitioner's "case would be referred to the OPS [Office of Professional Standards]" and "he could be terminated." Petitioner's age played no role whatsoever in Mr. Rothberg's decision to end Petitioner's retraining and give him the choice to resign from his position as a school bus driver and take a bus aide position or face the possible termination of his employment with Respondent. Petitioner opted to resign from his school bus driver position and accept a position as a bus aide rather than risk not having any job with Respondent. In his letter of resignation, Petitioner wrote that he was resigning because he had "fail[ed] driver retraining." Respondent accepted Petitioner's resignation and appointed him to a bus aide position, effective June 15, 2001, as Petitioner had requested in his letter of resignation, a position in which he has remained. In or around May 2004, Petitioner, through a union representative, John Nochi, contacted Mr. Rothberg's successor, Chris Dowda, to express Petitioner's interest in becoming a school bus driver again. Mr. Nochi, on Petitioner's behalf, asked Mr. Dowda "to check [Petitioner's] driving record to see if he would be qualified to be a school bus driver." On May 14, 2004, Mr. Dowda obtained a print out of Petitioner's driving record (as maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) and "screened it." Applying the Screening Criteria, Mr. Dowda determined, correctly, that Petitioner had accumulated a total of more than 25 district-assigned points over the period of his licensure and that he therefore was not qualified to be a school bus driver. Mr. Dowda thereafter telephoned Mr. Nochi and "told him what the results were" of the screening. Mr. Dowda had "numerous [follow-up telephone] conversations" with Mr. Nochi, who had "a lot of questions" concerning the Screening Criteria. During one of these telephone conversations, which took place sometime prior to the end of 2004, Mr. Dowda, in attempting to explain why the Screening Criteria were developed, posited the following: If there [are] bus driver[s] with a lot of citations on their record and they go out and they get into an accident and there are students injured on the bus and . . . the media gets a hold of their driving record we will see on the news, the media holding [it] up and say[ing], "Look who's driving for ou[r] district right now." Unbeknownst to Mr. Dowda, Petitioner was present in the same room as Mr. Nochi and listening on a speakerphone to what Mr. Dowda was saying to Mr. Nochi. Mr. Nochi also contacted Mr. Klein and requested him to "review the driving record of [Petitioner] and see whether it would be acceptable to bring [Petitioner] back as a school bus driver." After conducting the requested review and determining that Petitioner had "a terrible driving record with more than 25 points assessed based on a long history of driving infractions," Mr. Klein informed Mr. Nochi that he "was not prepared to bring [Petitioner] back as a school bus driver because [Petitioner] didn't meet the minimum requirements of the [S]creening [C]riteria to become a school bus driver," adding that these requirements were not "waive[d] . . . for anybody."6 Effective 2005, all school bus drivers in the state needed to have (as they still do today) a school bus driver endorsement on their commercial driver's license. That year (2005), Petitioner went to Northwestern High School to take a written test, administered by Respondent, to obtain such an endorsement, but was told that he was not eligible to, and therefore could not, take the test. Petitioner subsequently took the test at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles driver's license office in Pembroke Pines and received a passing score. On August 23, 2005, he was issued a commercial driver's license with a school bus driver endorsement. Petitioner subsequently went to Mr. Klein and showed him the newly issued license. Mr. Klein responded to being shown the license by repeating what he had told Mr. Nochi concerning Petitioner's having "too many points on his driving record" to be qualified under the Screening Criteria to become a school bus driver with Respondent. Although he has made inquiries about the possibility of his regaining a school bus driver position with Respondent, Petitioner has not submitted an official application for such a position at any time following his demotion. Under the hiring system Respondent has developed, the filing of an application is a prerequisite to becoming a school bus driver. On March 27, 2006, following his meeting with Mr. Klein, Petitioner filed the employment discrimination charge against Respondent which is the subject of the instant proceeding. The "particulars" of the charge were described by Petitioner as follows: I believe that I was discriminated against because of my age, 69. Chris Dadow [sic] made a derogatory comment about look who's driving our school buses. I was instructed to go and get a new license, and I complied. Mr. Chris Dadow [sic] refused to give me the driving test so I [could] become a School Bus Driver. I was ultimately denied the opportunity for employment. In fact, it was Petitioner's driving record, not his age, that prompted Mr. Dowda, as well as Mr. Klein, to take the positions they did, following Petitioner's demotion, regarding his ineligibility to fill any vacant school bus driver position. The comment made by Mr. Dowda about which Petitioner complained in his charge had nothing to do with Petitioner's, or anyone else's, age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2007, 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 28th day of September, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, what action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made are made to supplement and clarify the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' January 11, 2002, Stipulation: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent Respondent has been employed by the School Board since October of 1992. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. Respondent was initially employed as a substitute bus driver. Since March of 1993, she has held a regular school bus driver position. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was assigned to the School Board's Southwest Transportation Center (Center). Mary Murphy has been the director of the Center for the past seven years. Since August of 1999, Aned Lamboglia-Candales has been the Center's coordinator. As such, she "monitor[s] all attendance at the [C]enter" and assists Ms. Murphy in dealing with personnel problems at the Center. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was scheduled to work a total of six hours a day: three hours in the morning (morning shift) and three hours in the afternoon (afternoon shift). (In between the morning and afternoon shifts, she was off duty for several hours.) The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a school bus driver employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3., of the AFSCME Contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, Local 1184, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: . . . (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; . . . . It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; . . . . Article IX, Section 4.A., of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "newly-hired employees." It provides as follows: Newly-hired employees in the bargaining unit (except temporary, hourly, or substitute employees) shall be considered probationary for the first three calendar months; thereafter, they shall be considered annual employees, subject to annual reappointment. During such probationary period, employees may be terminated without recourse under this Contract. If, at any time during the probationary period, the newly-hired employee's performance is considered unacceptable, the probationary employee shall be terminated. Article IX, Section 13., of the AFSCME Contract addresses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance. AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program. The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations. The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Employee Rights: Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program. An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract is entitled, "Disciplinary Action." Section 1. of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process." It provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee[']s record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. A Conference-for-the-Record shall be held when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated investigation to determine if formal disciplinary action should be taken (1.e., letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal). A Conference-for- the-Record in and of itself shall not be considered disciplinary. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. The employee shall have the right to Union representation in Conferences-for-the- Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. A maximum of two Union representatives may be present at a Conference-for-the Record. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notice of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2. of Article XI is entitled, "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer or through the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action and to select the method of appeal. If the employee when appealing the Board action, does not select the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract the Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 4. of Article XI is entitled, "Types of Separation." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four [sic] distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- . . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of up to 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- . . . . AFSCME , Local 1184 bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non- reappointment. Such employee may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . . According to Article V, Section 18., of the AFSCME Contract, the term "workday," as used in the agreement, means "the total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties." The definition of "unauthorized absence," as used in the AFSCME Contract, is found in Article V, Section 27., of the contract, which provides as follows: Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. School Board "[R]ule[s], [R]egulation[s], [and] [P]olic[ies]" As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board "rule[s] regulation[s], and [p]olic[ies]" and, if she does not, she may be disciplined.1 Among the School Board's "rule[s]" are School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 addresses the subject of "[a]bsences and [l]eaves." It provides, in pertinent part, that, "[e]xcept for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave." School Board drivers and aides are governed by the following "[a]ttendance [p]olicy": Drivers and aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all workdays in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule, and their contract. AUTHORIZED ABSENCES For absences to be authorized, they must be reported to the driver's or aide's Transportation Center Dispatch Office in advance. This notice shall be made at the earliest possible time, but no later than before the next scheduled report time. Even in an emergency, every possible effort must be made to inform the Dispatch Office. The supervisory staff evaluates the driver's adherence to this rule. Intent to return should be treated in the same manner. Leave forms must be completed promptly for payroll purposes. UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES Unauthorized absences are subject to disciplinary action as prescribed under existing labor contracts. If a driver or aide does not report to work within 15 minutes after the scheduled report time, or does not call in absent before the report time, the absence will be considered unauthorized. If time off is taken during a regular working school day without a supervisor's approval, this absence may also be considered unauthorized. NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCES -Drivers and aides must notify their Transportation Center[']s Dispatch Office as soon as they have determined they cannot report to work. Drivers are not to make arrangements on their own for a substitute. All arrangements must be made by the Dispatch Office. -If a driver will not be reporting for work on regular school days, the driver must call in immediately and speak with the Dispatcher, or the Field Operations Specialist. -If a driver cannot report to work because of an emergency situation, the driver must contact the Dispatch Office as soon as possible. If the situation requires a driver to leave the area, the driver should have a relative or friend contact the office for the driver. -If the absence will occur sometime in the future, the Dispatch Office should be given as much advance notification as possible. -When the Dispatch Office is contacted, an explanation for the absence should be given along with the length of absence and estimated date of return. -If the driver is off from work for more than one day, the driver must contact the office each day, prior to the report time, with a complete update of the situation. The only times the driver does not have to contact the office on a daily basis are as follows: -Admission to a hospital as a patient -Maternity leave -A doctor's work release for a specified number of days -Extended sick leave2 -Approved leave of absence -Out of town CHECK-IN POLICY -All employees are expected to arrive at work on or before their scheduled report time. -Drivers and aides will be given a five minute grace period to report to work, during which no disciplinary nor financial actions will be taken. For example, if the driver or aide is scheduled to report for work at 6:00 a.m., but signs-in by 6:05 a.m., the driver or aide will be allowed to go out on the assigned route with no repercussions. -Drivers and aides who report to work 6-15 minutes after the scheduled report times will be considered "tardy." Tardy drivers and aides will be permitted to work. However, the dispatch may assign a stand-by or substitute driver or aide to the route of the tardy employee. Drivers and aides who are more than 10 minutes late, but less than 16 minutes late, will be used as substitute drivers and aides and will not be allowed to operate their regularly assigned route. For the tardy driver or aide who was replaced by a substitute or stand-by driver or aide, such driver or aide will then be assigned as substitute for other routes needing coverage, as requirements dictate. A record will be kept documenting all tardiness. Lost time will be accumulated for tardiness and employees will be docked pay in 1/2 day increments. -Drivers and aides who report to work 16 or more minutes after the scheduled report time will be considered "absent without leave" (AWOL). These persons will not be permitted to work. They will be placed on "unauthorized leave-without pay" (ULWOP) and will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Collective Bargaining Agreement -Extenuating circumstances will be evaluated by the Center Director and, upon proper documentation, may not be held against the employee. Repeated occurrences, such as "car broke down for the third time this week," will not be considered extenuating. DOCUMENTATION It is the responsibility of the drivers and aides to report to the supervisor in order to complete and/or produce all required paperwork related to the absence on the first workday upon return to work. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in an unauthorized absence regardless of extenuating circumstances. Pre-2000-2001 Regular School Year Warnings and Conferences-for- the-Record Regarding Respondent's Attendance and Leave On December 1, 1999, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's "unauthorized absences since March of 1999." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference and what "action [would] be taken." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales' memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: CONFERENCE DATA This is your second Conference-For-The- Record during this year and it was held to review your unauthorized absences since March of 1999 when the first conference was held. . . . During this conference you were provided with a copy of your leave history and this administrator reviewed it with you. . . . Since the conference in March of 1999 you have incurred approximately thirty (30) days of unauthorized leave without pay. This administrator also informed you that this is considered excessive since the number of days worked by employees in your bargaining unit is approximately 181 days in ten months. You stated that these unauthorized absences were due to the fact that you suffer from migraine headaches, high blood pressure as well as another medical condition that requires surgery to remove some growths. The medication that you take prevents you from driving since it makes you drowsy. You also stated that you do not always go to your physician's office for treatment. You provided this administrator with documentation of one of the medications you take as well as the names of the physicians that treat you. . . . ACTION TAKEN This administrator reviewed with you Article V, Section 27 and Article XI, Section 4 of the bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and AFSCME and informed you that failure to show improvement could lead to further disciplinary action. . . . You were also instructed to provide this administrator with documentation regarding your condition or treatments. Also, whenever you have a medical appointment to provide documentation verifying those. ACTION TO BE TAKEN This administrator will continue to monitor your attendance. A supervisory referral to the district support office was not done on your behalf since Ms. Ramsby, AFSCME Representative stated on your behalf that it was not necessary. Also please remember that you have the right to append, to clarify, or to explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Among the documents appended to the memorandum were copies of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME that were referenced in the memorandum. On March 1, 1999, Respondent received a verbal warning from Ms. Lamboglia-Candales concerning Respondent's "unauthorized leave." That same day, Respondent was presented by Ms. Lamboglia-Candales with a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder reflecting that Respondent had received the aforementioned verbal warning and directing Respondent to review Article V, Section 27., and Article XI, Section 4.B., of the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME. On May 3, 2000, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales issued Respondent a written warning concerning Respondent's "unauthorized leave." When the written warning was presented to Respondent on May 23, 2000, she refused to sign it. On July 21, 2000, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales held another Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to again discuss Respondent's "unauthorized absences." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference and what "action [would] be taken." Ms. Lamboglia-Candales' memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: CONFERENCE DATA This Conference-For-The-Record was held to review your unauthorized absences since . . . August 30, 1999. It was originally scheduled for June 9, 2000 but since you were not available that day it was re- scheduled for this day. During this conference you were provided with a copy of your leave history and this administrator reviewed it with you. . . . You received a verbal warning on March 1, 2000 and a written warning on May 23, 2000. . . . Since August 30, 1999 you have incurred approximately thirty-five unauthorized days (35) of leave and twenty-five (25) authorized days. You have been absent from work a total of seventy (70) days in one school year which is approximately ten months or 181 work days for employees in your bargaining group. You stated that many of your unauthorized absences were due to the fact that you have medical problems (high blood pressure). You also stated that the medication you are taking is not keeping it under control but your physician was going to change it to see if it helped. You also mentioned that you were considering taking a temporary demotion to a bus aide position until you felt better. You presented documentation for some of the days you have been absent and this administrator reviewed it. She reminded you that all documentation regarding absences should be brought in as soon as the absence occurs and not months later. . . . ACTION TAKEN This administrator reviewed with you Article V, Section 27 and Article XI, Section 4 of the bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and AFSCME and informed you that failure to show improvement could lead to further disciplinary action. . . . She also informed you that if you decided to take the voluntary demotion to bus attendant you could discuss this with her at a later date. ACTION TO BE TAKEN This administrator will do a supervisory referral to the district support agency at this time and will continue to monitor your attendance. Also you are informed that you have the right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Among the documents appended to the memorandum were copies of the provisions of the AFSCME Contract that were referenced in the memorandum. As promised, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program on July 25, 2000, and advised Respondent of the referral on that same date. Approximately a week after the July 21, 2000, Conference-for-the-Record, Respondent told Ms. Lamboglia- Candales that her physician had changed her medication and that the new medication "was working" and her "blood pressure was fine." As a result, she told Ms. Lamboglia-Candales, she was not going to pursue the temporary demotion to bus aide that she had previously discussed with Ms. Lamboglia-Candales. The 2000-2001 School Year On February 1, 2001, Ms. Lamboglia-Candales, along with Charlie Horn, an administrative assistant at the Center, held another Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to again discuss Respondent's "unauthorized absences." Mr. Horn subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference and what "action [would] be taken." Mr. Horn's memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: CONFERENCE DATA This is your second Conference-For-The- Record in the past twelve months during this year and it was held to review your unauthorized absences since July 21, 2000 when the other conference was held. . . . During this conference you were provided with a copy of your leave history and Ms. Candales reviewed it with you. Since the conference on July 21, 2000 you have incurred approximately fifteen (15) days of unauthorized leave without pay. Ms. Candales informed you that this is considered excessive since the number of days worked by employees in your bargaining unit is approximately 181 days in ten months. You stated that these unauthorized absences were due to dentist and court appointments. You provided Ms. Candales with documentation to review. . . . Ms. Candales reviewed it in your presence and determined that approximately 15 days of unauthorized leave could have been authorized had you presented the documentation at the time the absence occurred. ACTION TAKEN Ms. Candales reviewed with you Article V, Section 27 and Article XI, Section 4 of the bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and AFSCME and informed you that failure to show improvement could lead to further disciplinary action. . . . You were once again instructed to provide Ms. Candales with documentation regarding your appointments and/or absences. It is important that you present your documentation in a timely manner meaning as soon as the absence occurs and not months later. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Ms. Candales will continue to monitor your attendance. A supervisory referral to the district support agency will not be done at this time. Also, please remember that you have the right to append, to clarify, or to explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Among the documents appended to the memorandum were copies of the provisions of the AFSCME Contract that were referenced in the memorandum. On March 29, 2001, the Center's director, Ms. Murphy, held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss "her job performance as related to [her] attendance." Ms. Murphy subsequently prepared (on April 23, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on May 3, 2001) a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Ms. Murphy's memorandum read as follows: A Conference-For-The-Record was held in the office of the director of Southwest Regional Transportation Center on Thursday, March 29, 2001. The following were in attendance, Ms. Linda Hogans, Bus Driver, Ms. Joyce Moore, AFSCME, Ms. Carolyn Ransby, AFSCME, Ms. Dorothy Ferguson, Administrative Assistant, and Ms. Mary E. Murphy. The purpose of this conference was to review your job performance as related to your attendance. You were given a copy of your leave history, which was reviewed during the conference. Since the beginning of this school year, you have accumulated 27 unauthorized absences. The original total was 44 days and after reviewing the medical documentation you provided during the conference, the amount of days was changed to a total of 27 unauthorized days. Ms. Moore questioned the conference held by Mr. Horn and Ms. Candales when you presented documentation but Ms. Candales did not accept the documents. The days have been approved and the total days have changed again to 15 and a half unauthorized days without pay. You were asked why you had accumulated so many unauthorized days? Ms. Moore stated that at one time you were caring for a cousin who could not care for [her]self. This cousin later died. Also, you had [a] death in the family and you have been injured on the job, which plays a big part with your absences. You indicated that you have high blood pressure and you doctor tried several different medications to maintain control. You indicated that there are times when you do not feel well so you stay home. I asked if your doctor supplied you with notes? You indicated that the doctor would give you some notes but not all of the time. I explained that when you present documentation, those days would be authorized. Ms. Moore asked if you had previous conferences. I answered yes that Ms. Hogan[s] has had a couple of conferences. During one of the conferences held by Ms. Candales, you were advised to present documentation directly to her so your absences could be authorized. Ms. Candales held a conference with Ms. Hogan[s] on July 21, 2000. This conference was held during the summer months but the conference did not include unauthorized days accumulated during the summer. Ms. Ferguson stated that the conference was held in July because several attempts were made to have the conference in June and Ms. Candales was not able to conduct the conference due to the amount of days you were off. During the conference you were directed to: To come to work and be on time. If you need to be off, present documentation to Ms. Candales or myself. If either the Coordinator or Director is not available, give the documentation to the Administrative Assistant on duty. You signed a supervisory referral to the District Support Agency. You were told that the summary of this conference would be forwarded to Mr. Jerry Klein, Administrative Director and the Office of Professional Standards for review for possible disciplinary actions not excluding dismissal. Also you were informed that you have the right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Ms. Moore stated that going to District support is not all bad [in] that the district has many programs to help employees. It is not just for disciplinary problems. I mentioned that during the yearly in-service District Support is discussed and explained to the employees. Ms. Moore stated that in the in-service meeting there is so much noise that no one can hear. Ms. Hogan[s] said that she was not aware of the program. I checked her file and found out that Ms. Candales referred Ms. Hogan[s] in July 5, 2000. Ms. Hogan[s] declined to participate. By signing (on March 29, 2001) the "supervisory referral to the District Support Agency" mentioned in Ms. Murphy's memorandum, Ms. Hogans signified that she had "been advised of the referral." Following the March 29, 2001, Conference-for-the- Record, Respondent continued to have unauthorized absences. On June 7, 2001, Barbara Moss, a district director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss her absenteeism and her "future employment status" with the School Board. Ms. Moss subsequently prepared and then mailed to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In the "Action To Be Taken" portion of the memorandum, Ms. Moss stated the following: Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Associate Superintendent of School Operations, the Administrative Director of Transportation, and the Director of Southwest Transportation Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys will be requested. Receipt of their legal review, with endorsement by the Associate Superintendent, will compel formal notification of the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action(s) shall be consistent with the concepts and practice of progressive or corrective discipline. The degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. You were apprised of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. Ms. Moss provided Respondent the opportunity, following the Conference-for-the Record, to present documentation concerning any unauthorized absence that Respondent believed should be excused. Respondent took advantage of this opportunity and provided Ms. Moss with five or six letters from the Office of the Miami-Dade State Attorney asking that Respondent's absence from work on various dates be excused because she was "subpoenaed to the Office of the State Attorney" on those dates in connection with a criminal case, State v. China Wilson, Case No F00-21153, in which she was an "essential witness." Upon reviewing the letters, Ms. Moss noticed that there were "obvious" alterations on "a couple of the letters." Dates had been typed in over "white-out" and they "were jammed together." Ms. Moss faxed to the Office of the Miami-Dade State Attorney copies of all of the letters she had received from Respondent following the June 7, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record and inquired whether these letters were authentic. Ms. Moss was told by the assistant state attorney assigned to the State v. China Wilson case that "there was only one letter that was authentic." Ms. Moss subsequently met with Respondent, who was accompanied during the meeting by the senior vice president of AFSCME, Christine Harris, and an AFSCME shop steward, Charlie Lynch. Ms. Moss "showed them the [letters she had received from Respondent] and let them know that [the School Board was] moving forward with dismissal." In response to this advisement, either Respondent or Ms. Harris indicated that Respondent wanted to resign in lieu of being terminated and that she would like to have the aforementioned letters returned to her. Ms. Moss gave Respondent back the letters (without making copies of them). Respondent then left. A few minutes later, Respondent returned and indicated that she was "rescind[ing] her offer to resign." On August 10, 2001, the Superintendent of Schools sent a letter to Respondent advising her that he was recommending that the School Board, at its scheduled meeting on August 22, 2001, "suspend [her] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [her] effective the close of the workday, August 22, 2001, for just cause, including, but not limited to: excessive absenteeism; non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities; and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves." At its August 22, 2001, meeting, the School Board took the action recommended by the Superintendent of Schools. On more than one occasion during the 2000-2001 regular school year, Respondent had three or more consecutive workdays of unauthorized absences. The regular school year workdays during the 12-month period ending June 1, 2001, on which Respondent had unauthorized absences include (in addition to those set forth in the parties' January 11, 2002, Stipulation) the following: June 6, 2000 (whole day); June 9, 2000 (whole day); November 9, 2000 (whole day); December 15, 2000 (whole day); January 30, 2001 (half day); February 5, 2001 (whole day); May 25, 2001 (half day); May 30, 2001 (whole day); May 31, 2001 (whole day); and June 1, 2001 (whole day). Respondent also had numerous authorized absences (with and without pay) during the 12-month period ending June 1, 2001. From August 24, 2000, through May 24, 2001, she had 41 1/2 workdays of authorized absences without pay and ten and a half workdays of authorized absences with pay. Many of the authorized absences without pay were initially unauthorized absences, but they were converted to authorized absences without pay following the review of documentation provided by Respondent. The refusal of School Board administrators to excuse any additional unauthorized absences was within their sound discretion. They were under no obligation to do so. They acted reasonably, given Respondent's failure to present in a timely manner credible documentation demonstrating that these additional unauthorized absences were the result of extenuating circumstances and further considering Respondent's pattern of excessive absences. Respondent's excessive absences had an adverse impact on the Center's operations. As Ms. Murphy explained during her testimony (at page 158 of the hearing transcript): "[W]henever . . . a driver has a route and [the driver] take[s] off, then we have to place a substitute or a stand-by driver on it. And whenever that occurs, the route automatically runs late, because the regular driver[] knows the route better than the substitute driver or stand-by driver[].
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 pursuant Article XI, Section 4.B., of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2002.
The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of the acts charged in the specific notice of charges dated September 11, 1990, and, if so, whether petitioner should discharge him from his job as a school bus driver or take other disciplinary action?
Findings Of Fact After orientation and instruction beginning with his employment as a school bus driver trainee in September of 1987, respondent "was given [his] first bus" (T.383) on December 9, 1987. Formerly a truck driver, he became a permanent or non-probationary school bus driver in March of 1988. 1987-1988 After respondent drove his first route, No. 131, for two days, a supervisor shifted him to route No. 94, telling him "what a troubled bus it was." T.386. The supervisor told him the middle school students had already had plenty of warnings and exhorted him, "'Quit warning them. Write them up.'" Id. The rest of the 1987-1988 school year, respondent drove route No. 94, which entailed two separate runs, one for kindergarteners and one for middle schoolers. On the middle school run, "90 percent of the children wouldn't mind at all." T.392. The first of March or the end of February of 1988 (T.64), respondent Henderson told Rosalyn Brown, at the time the only black student on the bus, "to sit [her] black ass down in the seat." T.269. On other occasions, he told students to "[s]hut the hell up," (T.270) and said, "I won't put up with this bullshit." Id. He used the word "[f]uck . . . sometimes." T.256. Petitioner's official school board policies, a copy of which respondent received at or about the time he began work, state: Drivers shall at all times set good examples for the students riding their buses. Do not do on your bus that which students are not permitted to do. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, No. 6.44.9. Hernando County School Bus Rules, Instructions for Pupils Riding Buses provides, "Pupils must not use any abusive or profane language to other pupils, the driver, or pedestrians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, No. 10(b). On May 23, 1988, middle school girls were seated on the right hand side of the bus and boys on the left, as usual. As the bus, with respondent at the wheel, passed prisoners at work on a shoulder of the road, "the girls started leaning out the window hollering." (T.396) Mr. Henderson had hardly told them to close their windows when, while waiting for a traffic light to change, a "car pulled up beside [him, and the driver] complained that the boys w[ere] throwing paper out the windows at the back," (T.397) so he "informed the boys to close their windows," (id.) too. When, windows closed (except for respondent's), the bus began to resound with the sound of "stomping . . . feet" (T.397), Mr. Henderson pulled the bus over and parked by the side of the road. Unable to restore order, he drove the bus back to middle school. There respondent allowed the students to lower their windows, and the "duty teacher" urged them to behave. To respondent, the duty teacher said "if they didn't quiet down, take them on into Brooksville," (T.398) to the bus barn. Because the students were still unruly five minutes later, respondent drove them from the school to the transportation compound, where a mechanic boarded the bus to help maintain order, while respondent drove the children home. No violation of school board policy on Mr. Henderson's part was proven, in connection with the events of May 23, 1988. Limbs protruding and various missiles leaving through open windows justified his directing that the windows be closed. The radio in respondent's bus at the time was not in working order. Petitioner's official policies require that each "bus driver shall be responsible for being familiar with all state and local laws and regulations in regard to safety and see that these are properly carried out." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.4. At stop signs, respondent would "slow down, but he wouldn't come to a complete stop" (T.271) every time. When he failed to come to a complete stop, "the students would always yell at him about it." T.277. 1988-1989 Respondent resumed driving route No. 94 when school started in the fall of 1988. One day the first week back two fights broke out before the bus left middle school, and the new principal had to intervene. Later in the week, Joan Gear, petitioner's transportation coordinator told Mr. Henderson, "'Ray, we're going to prove a point to this principal. I want you to take another bus for a while.'" T.402 (Discipline problems persisted under respondent's successor on bus No. 94.) Mr. Henderson began the second week of the new school year driving route No. 108. After a week on route No. 108, he was transferred, without explanation, to route No. 73, one of the routes he had been on as a trainee and a less remunerative assignment than either No. 94 or No. 108. Only after the first Monday morning's run did he receive the No. 73 route report or route sheet, which listed twelve regularly scheduled stops. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B. The tenth morning stop was listed as "White House on Right," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B, on Ft. Dade Street. The white house meant stands north of Ft. Dade and slightly east of Little People's Day Care, which is on the south side of the street. Brandy Huntley, a niece of the day care center's proprietress, and two other middle schoolers were picked up mornings directly across the street from the white house, at the end of the day care center driveway. The first afternoon he drove, respondent stopped directly in front of the white house, and Brandy and the other middle schoolers disembarked there. But two afternoons that week (not in succession) he failed to stop in front of the white house (or across the street from Little People's Day Care.) Instead he stopped after turning left at the next intersection. Respondent's claim that a ditch made it necessary to stop in the middle of the road, if the bus stopped in front of the white house or across from the nursery afternoons, went unrebutted; but letting children out around the corner created other hazards. Nor was the spot respondent chose a "regularly scheduled stop" for any student. School board policy provides that "[a] driver shall not let any student off the bus at other than the student's regularly scheduled stop, unless permission has been given in writing by the child's parent." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.18. No such permission had been given here. Under school board policy, bus drivers may never let students off between regularly scheduled stops. After a discussion about where to stop on Ft. Dade Street in the afternoons and before his first week on route No. 73 was out, respondent took a leave of absence through November 22, 1988. Once the leave was over, petitioner's initial refusal to put him back to work resulted in respondent's filing an unfair labor practice charge. On January 18, 1989, he returned to work. For the remainder of the school year, he drove route No. 75, without incident. Two Minutes Time allotted for regular routes includes a half hour for cleaning and paper work, but drivers on field trips are paid based on the time actually required to do the job. On July 18, 1989, Mr. Henderson drove on a field trip. Ordinarily, a field trip driver completes and submits a form showing how long he has worked, only after making the trip and cleaning the bus. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 13; T. 423. Rain made for an early end to the field trip. At five minutes after noon on the 18th, Mr. Henderson set out for the restroom in the transportation compound offices. He took with him a form on which he had written 12:30, his estimate of when he would finish cleaning the bus. Leaving the form on Miss Looper's desk, he returned to the bus and began cleaning. After he had cleaned the bus, he returned to the compound office, which he reached at 12:28. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11, 13, T. 423. When Ms. Gear asked him to substitute 12:28 for 12:30 on the form, he responded, "Joan, if you want the time changed, change it." (T.424) When she said, "I won't pay you if you don't change it," Id., he replied, "Don't pay me." Id. A month later, the unaltered form was processed and respondent was paid. Whether two minutes made any difference in his compensation for the field trip the evidence did not show. 1989-1990 When the next school year began, Mr. Henderson drove route No. 200. One October afternoon after students had boarded, Mr. Henderson prepared to pull away from the high school. Before moving forward, the bus rolled back a few inches into the bus driven by Jose Santiago. Without respondent's knowing, a tail light lens struck (without damaging) a mirror on Santiago's bus, leaving a hole in the lens two inches across. T. 287-291, 376, 429. Accidents of this kind are not uncommon. To prevent students' walking in front of buses, the drivers park them tightly one behind another before school lets out. T. 287-291, 342, 376, 377, 426, 530. By the time Mr. Santiago finished his route and reached the transportation compound, Mr. Henderson had already left. Mr. Santiago reported the accident to the office staff and to one of the mechanics, who brought the bus respondent had driven to the garage to replace the lens. But Mark Tallent told the mechanic to return the bus unrepaired to its regular parking place, setting a "trap" he had never set for any other driver. T. 24, 58, 59, 288, 378. Bus drivers are required to perform a "pre-trip inspection" of their buses, and make records of the inspections by completing forms. Petitioner requires that all exterior lights be checked. The next morning respondent indicated that everything was in working order on his pre-trip inspection form. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7; T. 39. Ken Schill, petitioner's safety officer, followed respondent's bus in another vehicle and pulled him over. Together they inspected the broken lens. Petitioner suspended Henderson for three days and required him to take eight hours of in-service training, on account of the inspection form's inaccuracy. T. 40-41, 95-96, 428-429. In January or February, Mr. Henderson's bus was following bus No. 149 on a dusty rock or gravel road. After bus No. 149 made a newly scheduled stop, Mr. Henderson braked suddenly and steered his bus to the left to avoid hitting bus No. 149. By the time he came to a stop, the buses overlapped. T. 454, 498, 502. On the afternoon of February 28, 1990, Mr. Henderson had driven the school bus to the crest of a hill on Weatherley Road, when state trooper Lee Frye, who was sitting in his car at the bottom of (the other side of) the hill "clocked Mr. Henderson speeding." T.151. He was exceeding the 35-mile-per hour speed limit by at least ten miles per hour, although he told the trooper the speedometer had not indicated this. T. 151, 157, 430-433; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7A. Trooper Frye did not give Mr. Henderson a citation, but he told the Board's transportation department that the bus was going 52 miles per hour. Although not consistently enforced, school Board Policy 6.44(23) states: "Any bus driver guilty of a traffic violation involving a school bus will be dismissed." After Mr. Tallent checked Henderson's speedometer, he recommended and the School Board approved a suspension of ten days plus fifteen hours' retraining on account of this incident. T. 44-45, 151-157, 430-436. One afternoon on Willow Street respondent veered to avoid a car and knocked over at least two empty, lidless, rubber trashcans standing approximately one foot from the right edge of the road. When, back at the compound, Mr. Henderson told Mark Tallent about the accident, Mr. Tallent said to forget about it. T. 437-444, 496. On another afternoon, Scott Robinson, a student who had just gotten off bus No. 200, was approximately 6 or 7 feet in front of the bus when he heard the engine revving. Although Scott did not see the bus move forward, he was frightened, and the bus in fact "jerked." T. 133-148. The next morning, Mr. Henderson inquired "You really didn't think I was going to hit you, did you?" T.134. Another time the bus lurched forward while Kathy Black "was still in front of the bus" (T.252) "and about hit her." Id. Tom Ferris complained that Henderson almost hit another bus. Cathy Smith, a parent of a student on route No. 200 filed a complaint on April 30, 1990, claiming that he failed to stop for her daughter at her regularly scheduled stop. On May 3, 1990, petitioner received a three-page list of 21 complaints against Mr. Henderson, accompanied by a petition with 20 names on it, both written by Kim Lowe, a student on route No. 200 whom respondent had frequently disciplined. On May 4, 1990, another parent, Mr. Burris, complained to Mr. Tallent that he had observed respondent speeding and driving recklessly. T. 46-51, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Earlier during the 1989-90 school year, petitioner's Department of Transportation had received still other complaints about Mr. Henderson. On May 3 or 4, 1990, without offering any explanation, Mr. Tallent told respondent he need no longer report for work. He did not tell Mr. Henderson of the complaints Ms. Smith and Messers. Burris and Ferris had made or give him an opportunity to refute their allegations prior to the filing of formal charges.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss respondent as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 through 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the school year was 1987-1988. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the complaint included the words "god damn." With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the evidence showed things were being thrown out of the bus. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46, 48, 49 and 50, it was not proven that other drivers reported every accident, however minor, or did so before leaving the scene, and respondent did report hitting the trashcans. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 64 refers to a complaint that was not proven at hearing. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 65 is not supported by citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what she thought other than that she was "stunned looking." Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 through 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, she testified she was the only black. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, a "duty teacher" boarded the bus and spoke to the children. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the morning stop was across the street from the white house. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, students calling out alerted him the buses had collided. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the policy has not been enforced consistently. COPIES FURNISHED: John T. Jaszczak, Esquire Hogg, Allen, North & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 S. Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1700 Dr. Daniel L. McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. 41 North Brooksville, FL 34601
The Issue The issue is whether 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 The issue is whether Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 (“the Union”) committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner (“Addie L. McMillan”) by failing to provide her with the same level of advocacy provided to Union members and non-African-Americans.
Findings Of Fact Ms. McMillan is a 55-year-old, African-American female who had worked at ECAT for 22 years. She began as a part-time beach trolley operator and progressed to becoming a full-time bus driver. The Union and ECAT had a labor agreement1/ in place between October 23, 2013, and September 30, 2016 (“the labor agreement”). Article 52 of the labor agreement had a policy regarding the use of cell phones by ECAT employees and provided as follows: While on duty the use of cellular phone or any other personal communication device is limited as follows: SECTION 1: The use by an employee of a cellular phone or any other personal communication device while behind the wheel of a transit vehicle, or any other Company motor vehicle is prohibited while the vehicle is not secured. Push to talk communication devices issued by the Company may be used for work related purposes only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law, but must be used in a manner, which would not create an unsafe situation. Note – Secured definition: Vehicle must be in neutral/park position and emergency brake on. SECTION 2: If it becomes necessary to use a cellular phone, employees must be at the end of the line/trip (on layover, if applicable) or in a safe location with the bus secure. At no time is it permissible to use a cellular phone if the use will cause the trip to be late at its next scheduled time point. SECTION 3: The use of a cellular phone or other communication device by an employee while on the shop floor or during work time (unless previously approved) is prohibited, other than a Push to Talk communication device issued by the Company for work related purposes, and only where authorized by the Company and permitted by law. Federal and State law supersede the above policy. SECTION 4: Disciplinary Action: Failure to comply with any portion of this policy may result in disciplinary action as follows: Violation of Section 2 or Section 3 of this Article: 1st offense: 3-day suspension 2nd offense: Termination Violation of Section 1 of this Article: 1st offense: Termination On the morning of July 29, 2015, Ms. McMillan was driving a route that went through the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. At that time, the navy base had been on alert status for approximately one month. As a result, every vehicle entering the navy base had to be searched, and that caused Ms. McMillan’s bus to run behind schedule. At approximately 10:30 that morning, Ms. McMillan needed to use a bathroom and called a dispatcher via a radio provided by ECAT. The dispatcher contacted by Ms. McMillan was not receptive to her request for a bathroom break and cut off communications. Because Ms. McMillan was unsuccessful in re- establishing contact with the dispatcher over the radio, she used her personal cell phone to call a coworker, Elaine Wiggins. Ms. McMillan was hoping that Ms. Wiggins could assist her with contacting an ECAT general manager. At this point in time, the bus driven by Ms. McMillan was in traffic and moving. In other words, it was not “secured” by being in the neutral/park position with the emergency brake on. Diane Hall was an assistant general manager for ECAT during the time period at issue, and Ms. Hall talked to Ms. McMillan via Ms. Wiggins’ cell phone. Ms. Hall stated to Ms. McMillan that the route she was driving had a pre-arranged break point at a bowling alley and that Ms. McMillan could use a bathroom there. It is possible that Ms. McMillan would not have suffered any consequences for her violation of the cell phone policy but for a customer complaint provided to ECAT on July 28, 2015. On July 28, 2015, at 12:25 p.m., Roberta Millender, a customer service representative at ECAT, received a phone call from a customer who reported that the bus driver for Route 57 had left the bus at approximately 11:00 a.m. in order to smoke a cigarette, even though the bus was 25 minutes behind schedule. Ms. McMillan also drives that route. ECAT’s buses are equipped with video cameras. Therefore, ECAT reviewed the videotape from that particular bus in order to investigate the complaint. Because the bus videotapes are on a continuous loop, ECAT had to pull video corresponding to days before and after July 28, 2015. While looking for the incident on July 28, 2015, that led to the customer complaint, an ECAT employee noticed that Ms. McMillan was using her cell phone on July 29, 2015. There is no dispute that Ms. McMillan is not the bus driver who took the cigarette break on July 28, 2015.2/ On July 30, 2015, ECAT began an investigation of Ms. McMillan’s cell phone use. ECAT notified Ms. McMillan that she would continue to work during the investigation. ECAT terminated Ms. McMillan on August 3, 2015, for violating section 1 of Article 52 of the labor agreement. Article 5 of the labor agreement sets forth the procedures that ECAT and the Union follow in order to resolve labor issues. Pursuant to Section 2 of Article 5, Michael Lowery, the President of the Union, filed an “Official Grievance Form” (“the McMillan grievance”) with Mike Crittenden, ECAT’s General Manager. Ms. McMillan had reservations about Mr. Lowery handling her grievance. Because she had not joined a recent strike and was not a Union member, Ms. McMillan feared that Mr. Lowery would not use his best efforts on her behalf. However, Mr. Lowery handles the majority of the grievances, and he handles all of the grievances involving termination.3/ The McMillan grievance stated the following: The employee does not dispute the offered video and will stipulate that she used her personal cellphone while operating a transit bus while not secure. This professional bus operator understood the Company policy but did not clearly understand the proper procedure to request assistance to disembark her motor coach while under tremendous physical bodily stress to relieve herself of a bodily function. Operator McMillan understood the procedure to request a 10-7 (Operator off Motor Coach) but was concerned with her bodily stress and finding a safe, clean rest room which was continuing to cause significant additional stress. The Company has clearly FAILED to work at providing known secure, clean, safe facilities for professional bus operators to utilize while operating ECAT buses. The Union has brought this topic forward to Management numerous times and no action has been taken to formulate the needs of the professional bus operators on many bus routes including the bus route that Operator McMillan was driving on the day in question. Operator McMillan was dealing with other related stress on that particular run. The military base was under alert and traffic was extremely backed up. She was dealing with one Dispatcher Supervisor and had reached agreement with him on how to proceed on the bus route. But when another Dispatch Supervisor came on duty it was clear that neither of those Supervisors had shared information on dealing with Route 57 with the military heighten[ed] alert. The new Dispatch was difficult to communicate with about established procedures set earlier with another Dispatcher. This did not help the already adverse or very demanding circumstance. Mr. Lowery concluded the grievance by asking that ECAT rescind its termination of Ms. McMillan, pay her lost wages and benefits, and remove any discipline from her file. Ordinarily, the first step in resolving a grievance involves settlement discussions between ECAT officials and the Union. However, because Ms. McMillan’s grievance involved a termination, it went directly to Mr. Crittenden for his consideration. Via an e-mail dated August 4, 2015, Mr. Crittenden notified Mr. Lowery that he was “denying this grievance and upholding the termination of the subject employee.” Because Ms. McMillan’s grievance was denied, the next step in the process called for the Union to decide whether it wanted to submit the grievance to arbitration.4/ As part of this next step, Mr. Crittenden prepared a draft version of a “Last Chance Agreement” for the Union to review. A Last Chance Agreement is an agreement between an employee, ECAT, and the Union. The draft Last Chance Agreement prepared by Mr. Crittenden contained the following provisions: The employee violated the Company’s cell phone [policy] which is a serious safety infraction that warrants immediate termination. In lieu of terminating her employment, the Employee’s discipline record will reflect this infraction as suspended without pay from August 3, 2015 to August 14, 2015 and returning to work on August 17, 2015 upon acceptance of this agreement, and placed on a twelve month probation/Last Chance Agreement. The employee will retain her rate of pay and security. The employee understands that in the event she violates company policy by being charged with any infraction that warrants immediate termination, her employment will be terminated without any further consideration. This agreement will be in effect for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of signature. The Employee attests that her signature below was in no way coerced by any party or by the representative of any party. By entering into this agreement, the employee acknowledges that she has read and considered each of the provisions of this Agreement and that she voluntarily enters into this Agreement with full knowledge of the consequences. This Agreement is made on a one-time only, non-precedent basis that shall not be used or referred to in any future discipline or termination case or during any grievance/arbitration hearings between the parties. Mr. Lowery presented the proposed Last Chance Agreement to the Union’s legal counsel, and the Union had an issue with the seventh provision’s reference to “non-precedent basis.” Mr. Lowery attempted to reach an agreement with Mr. Crittenden for amending that provision, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Mr. Crittenden would not consent to the removal of that language. Ms. McMillan was disturbed by the fact that she had no input into the Last Chance Agreement proposed by Mr. Crittenden and that it was not presented to her for approval. However, after the Union decided not to accept Mr. Crittenden’s proposal, Ms. McMillan’s approval or disapproval became irrelevant. As noted above, a Last Chance Agreement involves three consenting parties: the employee, ECAT, and the Union. Thus, even if Ms. McMillan had been satisfied with the Last Chance Agreement proposed by Mr. Crittenden, it would not go into effect without the Union’s approval. In order for the Union’s Executive Board to vote on whether to refer Ms. McMillan’s case to arbitration, Mr. Lowery put Ms. McMillan’s grievance on the agenda of the Executive Board’s August 23, 2015, meeting. The five members of the Executive Board who were present and eligible to vote unanimously recommended against pursuing arbitration for Ms. McMillan’s grievance because her case lacked merit. As for why Ms. McMillan’s case lacked merit, Mr. Lowery testified that Well, basically, it’s pretty simple, we negotiated the policy in the labor agreement, and this was a video. And the video showed that she had clearly violated the policy. And so from there, it was going to be very difficult, based on that evidence, that we were not going to be able to go forward. And that’s why the membership voted not to go forward. The Executive Board’s recommendation was considered by the full Union membership later that day, and the Union voted to accept the Executive Board’s recommendation. When asked to explain why the Union elected not to arbitrate Ms. McMillan’s grievance, Mr. Lowery testified that Simply it’s the severity of the policy, which was it’s in the labor agreement. It was negotiated between the Union and the company. And because they had a solid video, we would not be able to demonstrate a way to achieve a victory in that arbitration case. And, potentially, because it’s in the Labor Agreement, that would be used against us in an arbitration because we negotiated it. We negotiated the policy. When subsequently asked a very similar question, Mr. Lowery reiterated that Well, basically, it’s pretty simple, we negotiated the policy in the labor agreement, and this was a video. And the video showed that she had clearly violated the policy. And so from there, it was going to be very difficult, based on that evidence, that we were not going to be able to go forward. And that’s why the membership voted not to go forward. The Union has not arbitrated any grievances in which a driver has been terminated for using a cell phone while a bus was not secured. Including Ms. McMillan, four drivers have been terminated for violating section 1 of Article 52 since the labor agreement has been in place. Three of those drivers were African-American (two females and one male), and one was a Caucasian female. Mr. Crittenden was unaware of any driver being retained by ECAT after violating the cell phone policy.5/ In addition to Mr. Crittenden, Ms. McMillan called three other ECAT employees who were unaware of any bus driver being retained after violating the cell phone policy. Mr. Lowery represents every grievance to the best of his ability, and he represented Ms. McMillan’s grievance to the best of his ability. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that he handled Ms. McMillan’s grievance no differently than any other grievance.6/ Mr. Lowery did not consider Ms. McMillan’s race or religion in the course of representing her.7/ The Union did not discriminate against Ms. McMillan based on her race or non-union status. In addition, to whatever extent that Ms. McMillan is alleging that she was discriminated against on any other grounds, there is no evidence to support such allegations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Addie L. McMillan’s Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began employment with Respondent as a school bus driver in December, 1975. School bus drivers are part of the bargaining unit with the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, and at all times material hereto, the collective bargaining agreement between this union and the Respondent provided that employees who had not returned to work for one year following an on the job injury could be terminated without prejudice. During 1981, Petitioner was injured on the job when he twisted his back falling off a school bus, and thereafter he was determined to be disabled, and received worker's compensation benefits. Because he felt he would never be able to return to his job as a school bus driver due to his injury, Petitioner settled his claim against Respondent resulting from his 1981 injury for a lump sum payment of $15,000. In 1983, Petitioner was released by his treating physician, and applied for reinstatement with Respondent. When Respondent did not initially reinstate him, Petitioner filed a handicap discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ultimately, Respondent did rehire Petitioner during 1983 as a school bus driver, but his salary was set at the beginning level without credit for his prior experience. Petitioner continued to work as a school bus driver after he was rehired in 1983, receiving excellent performance evaluations, until April, 1985, when the bus he was driving was hit by a truck that ran a red light. In attempting to get the bus under control after it was hit, Petitioner twisted and reinjured his back. He was not at fault in this accident. Thereafter, Petitioner was again determined to be disabled, and received worker's compensation benefits. One month after his second accident, Petitioner was released by his treating physician, Dr. Patrick J. Logue, and was allowed to return to work with Respondent in May, 1985. However, after attempting to drive a school bus, and perform the other duties of a driver, Petitioner decided he could not continue working. He determined he was not physically able to do his job. Thereupon, he was referred by worker's compensation to two additional physicians, Drs. Charles D. Nach and H. G. Siek, orthopedic surgeons licensed to practice in this State. Dr. Nach prepared a medical absence report after examining Petitioner on July 5, 1985, and concluded that Petitioner would be able to return to work on that date, July 5, 1985. Petitioner did not return to work, however, and began seeing Dr. Siek in August, 1985, as well as Dr. J. Baird, a physician at the Martha Stetson Health Center, on referral by the Respondent. Respondent's Rule 6Gx52-7.05, Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the examination of injured employees at this Health Center. Dr. Baird filed a report dated October 22, 1985, indicating Petitioner could return to work, but could not lift, bend, stoop, squat, pull or push. Dr. Siek concluded that Petitioner could return to work on November 5, 1985, but with no heavy lifting. On November 14, 1985, Respondent's Assistant Transportation Director, Walter Allison, prepared a detailed description of duties a school bus driver must perform, and requested that Petitioner allow his treating physician to review this description, and provide written verification of the fact that he could, in fact, perform these duties. The parties took, and introduced in evidence, the deposition of Dr. Siek wherein Dr. Siek testified that he had reviewed Allison's letter with Petitioner on November 18, 1985, and determined that he "didn't find that these prerequisites are too strenuous if he (Petitioner) felt they were within his capabilities." There is no evidence in the record, however, that Dr. Siek's conclusion on November 18 was ever conveyed to Walter Allison or any other representative of Respondent. In late November, 1985, Petition was referred to a "work hardening" program administered by Physical Capacities, Inc. This program is used by Respondent and other employers to prepare employees who have been off the job for some time for the physical demands of their jobs, and to avoid aggravating their conditions while increasing mobility and strength. It consists of a physical assessment, training and work simulation exercises. However, after only two days in the work hardening program, Petitioner quit the program, and refused to return. He felt the exercises were aggravating his condition. Thereafter, Petitioner resumed seeing Dr. Siek, and in April, 1986, Dr. Siek concluded that Petitioner could return to work, with light duty. However, Petitioner never insured that Dr. Siek provide Respondent with a response to Walter Allison's letter of November 14, 1985, which had clearly stated that once written verifications were received from Dr. Siek and Dr. Baird that Petitioner could perform the duties of a school bus driver, he would be permitted to return to work. Petitioner completed and filed Statements of Continuing Disability from January through June, 1986, on which he indicated he was unable to return to work due to his back and hip condition. In August, 1986, Petitioner began employment with the Upper Pinellas Association for Retarded Citizens (UPARC) as a bus driver, and has been continuously employed with UPARC to the present. On December 5, 1986, Petitioner and Respondent executed a Stipulation and Joint Petition for Lump Sum Payment of his worker's compensation claim arising from the April, 1985 accident. Under the terms of this agreement, Respondent released a lien which it had against Petitioner's recovery against the driver of the truck which hit the school bus. The lien was in the amount of $21,845.71, resulting from worker's compensation benefits paid by Respondent to Petitioner, which Respondent could have collected against the $40,000 recovery Petitioner received from the tortfeasor. The parties also stipulated that maximum medical improvement was reached on April 14, 1986. The Stipulation and Agreement was approved by the Deputy Commissioner for worker's compensation. On January 16, 1987, Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination against Respondent alleging that since April, 1986, he had been denied reemployment by the Respondent due to retaliation for his filing of an earlier complaint of handicap discrimination in 1983. After investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission made a determination of "no cause" concerning Petitioner's complaint, and Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief, resulting in this hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5285 The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order with Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 10-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 14-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 18-20. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 21. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 22-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 25. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 30-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 34-35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 38-49. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6, but otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 10, 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Moore, Esquire Gulf Coast Legal Services, Inc. 6 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Second Floor Clearwater, Florida 34616 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
