The Issue The issue is whether Seminole County School Board (Respondent) engaged in disparate treatment of Valeria Gaskin (Petitioner) such that the treatment of Petitioner constituted gender discrimination that resulted in a constructive discharge of Petitioner from her position with the school district.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was hired by Respondent on November 25, 1991, as a school bus driver. At all times material to this case, Petitioner’s performance of her duties as a school bus driver relate to the ultimate issues of law and fact to be resolved. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement entitled “Agreement with the Seminole County Bus Drivers’ Association, Inc. and the School Board of Seminole County (union contract).” Respondent is the entity charged by law to operate the School District of Seminole County, Florida, and in that capacity entered into the union contract. Petitioner was charged with the responsibility of reading the union contract and complying with its terms. Petitioner acknowledged that she was directed to review the contract and familiarize herself with it not less than annually. The union contract required Petitioner to comply with school board policies related to her employment duties. Kenneth Lewis is Respondent’s Director of Transportation under whose leadership all school buses are operated and maintained. In the structure of the Transportation Department, Mr. Lewis is followed by Julie Murphy, Assistant Director of Transportation, who, in turn, supervises Area Managers who perform the daily supervision of bus drivers. At all times material to this matter, Kathy Dent was the Area Manager under whom Petitioner served. It is undisputed that Respondent’s policy prohibits the use of cell phones while driving a school bus. All school bus drivers are made aware of the policy and the policy is reiterated in the Transportation Handbook (handbook) and is discussed repeatedly throughout the school year during department meetings. Petitioner acknowledged that she was provided a handbook and knew that Respondent’s policy prohibited the use of cell phones by school bus drivers while on a school bus. On or about October 3, 2007, Ms. Dent met with the bus drivers under her charge (including Petitioner) to remind them of the policy against cell phone use while on school buses. On November 30, 2007, Ms. Dent met with Petitioner individually to advise her again that cell phone use was not permitted while driving a school bus. On January 17, 2008, Petitioner was involved in a vehicular accident and was talking on a cell phone at the time of the crash. Petitioner acknowledged that she was using a cell phone while driving on January 17, 2008, and that such use violated school board policy. In fact, because Petitioner’s school bus carried a digital video camera that recorded Petitioner’s actions on January 17, 2008, Petitioner knew that she could be terminated for cell phone use while driving a school bus. More specifically, at the time of the accident the video captured Petitioner exclaiming, "I’m going to lose my job because I’m on the cell phone." Subsequent to the accident Petitioner was on workers’ compensation/leave but returned to work to face a five-day suspension without pay for her violation of the cell phone policy. The letter advising Petitioner of the proposed punishment clearly indicated that the recommendation for a five- day suspension without pay from the Transportation Department would be forwarded to the school superintendent for review and action. The school superintendent accepted the recommendation and Petitioner was advised that she would serve the unpaid suspension on May 13, 14, 20, 21, and June 3, 2008. These were the first dates available after Petitioner returned to work. On May 7, 2008, a date that Petitioner was driving her bus on her designated route, a student complained that an ipod had been stolen. To attempt to solve the complaint, a law enforcement officer requested that the Transportation Department pull the video from Petitioner’s bus to see if it could reveal who might have taken the device. To that end, Assistant Director Murphy contacted Ms. Dent to ask her to retrieve the video and review it for the purpose requested. Ms. Dent pulled the video hard drive from Petitioner’s bus and viewed the footage for the purpose directed. Ms. Dent discovered conduct she had not expected. First, the video clearly showed that Petitioner continued to use her cell phone while on the school bus. Even in the face of her impending suspension, Petitioner disregarded the school board policy and the directives from her supervisor. Petitioner continued to talk on a cell phone while on the school bus. Second, the video clearly showed unbecoming conduct between Petitioner and another school bus driver, William Boone. During the video Mr. Boone can be seen approaching Petitioner while she is seated at the driver’s position, place his hand and arm under her skirt for an extended period of time, and then later giving her an unspecified amount of money before departing. This conduct occurred while Petitioner was in line awaiting the start of her bus duties. Students were not on the bus at the time. Given the unexpected discoveries on the video, both Petitioner and Mr. Boone were called to the transportation office to meet with Mr. Lewis. Beforehand, however, the video from Mr. Boone’s bus was retrieved to determine if any inappropriate conduct could be seen on it. The video did not disclose any such conduct. Mr. Boone was not observed using a cell phone while on his bus and no additional unbecoming conduct was depicted. On May 9, 2008, a meeting was conducted with Petitioner, Ms. Murphy, Ms. Dent, and Mr. Boone. Later Mr. Lewis joined the group. Petitioner and Mr. Boone were advised that their unbecoming conduct had been captured by the bus video. Additionally, Petitioner was advised that her continued use of a cell phone while on the school bus had also been shown on the video. The video spoke for itself. The video contained irrefutable evidence of the conduct described above. Petitioner and Mr. Boone were given the opportunity to see the video for themselves. Both employees displayed embarrassment and concern. Mr. Lewis advised Petitioner that her continued use of the cell phone was in violation of the school board policy and advised both employees that the unbecoming conduct that appeared to be of a sexual nature was also not acceptable. At some point Petitioner claimed that she and Mr. Boone had been involved in a romantic relationship for an extended period of time. Mr. Boone expressed concern that his wife would find out about the incident. Mr. Boone denied that he was engaged in sexual conduct but accepted that it appeared that way. Further, Mr. Boone who held a previously untarnished personnel record did not want to lose his job. Mr. Lewis advised both Mr. Boone and Petitioner that he would likely recommend termination for both of them. He did not ask for their resignations, did not attempt to intimidate them in any manner, but expressed concern at their lack of judgment. As to Petitioner, since the video depicted her continued use of the cell phone (an act not applicable to Mr. Boone), Mr. Lewis expressed serious issue with Petitioner’s behavior. Nevertheless, no one demanded that Petitioner resign her position with the school district. Later in the day, Petitioner and her union representative met with Mr. Lewis to review the allegations. Since Mr. Lewis did not change his position and the union did not seem supportive of her cause, Petitioner became upset. Ms. Murphy offered to speak to Mr. Lewis on Petitioner’s behalf to see if she would be eligible for another employment position within the school district. Petitioner was afforded additional opportunities to meet with her union representative and to determine what, if any, response she would make regarding the allegations. At that point in time, Petitioner knew or should have known that the conduct depicted on the bus video would lead to the recommendation from Mr. Lewis to the school superintendent that Petitioner’s employment as a bus driver be terminated. Petitioner knew or should have known based upon the previous disciplinary action against her that her supervisors could not take disciplinary action against her based upon their authority. Moreover, for Petitioner to be terminated, the school superintendent would have to make the recommendation to the school board for its action. In this case, that recommendation never happened. Instead, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Ms. Murphy. Additionally, Petitioner stated to Ms. Murphy that she did not want Ms. Murphy to look for another employment opportunity within the school district for her. Petitioner’s letter of resignation selected May 30, 2008, as its effective date. It is undisputed that Petitioner continued to use a cell phone in violation of the school board policy despite being aware of the consequences for violation of the policy. Mr. Boone also faced disciplinary action for his part in the recorded conduct. As previously indicated, Mr. Boone had an unblemished record with the school district prior to the conduct described in this cause. He had worked for the school district almost 20 years without serious incident of any kind. Ultimately, Mr. Reichert, the Executive Director of Human Resources and Professional Standards for the Respondent, determined that there was insufficient evidence against Mr. Boone to recommend his termination to the school board. Instead, Mr. Boone was suspended without pay for five days. Mr. Boone did not challenge that decision and duly served his suspension. Mr. Boone did not admit that he had fondled Petitioner but did acknowledge that his conduct was unbecoming a school board employee. While more direct in admitting what occurred between Mr. Boone and herself, Petitioner also acknowledged that their behavior was inappropriate. Petitioner argues that both employees should have been treated similarly. Further, Petitioner maintains that Mr. Boone received better treatment, that is to say, less severe disciplinary measures, than she. Petitioner claims that her resignation was influenced by gender discrimination and ultimately a constructive discharge based upon the disparate treatment she received when compared to Mr. Boone. Petitioner did not file a complaint against the school board at the time of the incident claiming that her resignation was being coerced or was involuntarily tendered. At the time of resignation, Petitioner did not know what disciplinary action would be taken against Mr. Boone. Additionally, Petitioner knew or should have known that she could contest any disciplinary action brought against her and that she would be entitled to a hearing. Finally, Petitioner knew or should have known that her union could advise her and participate (as guided by their decision) in any disciplinary action against her based upon the terms of the union contract. Petitioner did not attempt to withdraw her letter of resignation prior to its effective date. Petitioner and Mr. Boone are no longer on friendly terms. Petitioner timely filed her claim with the FCHR seeking relief based upon gender-related disparate treatment. She maintains that conditions of her job environment constitute a constructive termination of her employment with Respondent. FCHR issued its determination of no cause and Petitioner timely pursued the instant administrative action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s claim for relief as she was not treated in a disparate manner, did not experience a hostile work environment, and did not establish that she was qualified to continue her position as a bus driver for Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 15th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Serita D. Beamon, Esquire Seminole County School Board Legal Service Department 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bill Vogel, Ed.D. Superintendent Education Support Center 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against her. If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent Respondent has been employed by the School Board since May of 1984. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. For the duration of her employment with the School Board, Respondent has held a school bus aide position and been assigned to the School Board's South Regional Transportation Center (Center), the director of which, since May of 1994, has been Patricia Snell. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was scheduled to work a total of six hours a day: three hours in the morning (morning shift) and three hours in the afternoon (afternoon shift). (In between the morning and afternoon shifts, she was off duty for several hours.) The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a school bus aide employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: selection and promotion of employees; separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and the lines of administrative authority of DCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; Contract out for goods or services; and, Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Article IX, Section 13, of the AFSCME Contract addresses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance. AFSCME and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program. The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations. The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Employee Rights: Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program. An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely. Article IX, Section 14F, of the AFSCME Contract essentially recites the provisions of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.05, which is the School Board's "Drug Free Work Place General Policy Statement." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: DCPS [Dade County Public Schools] and AFSCME recognize that substance abuse in our nation and our community exacts staggering costs in both human and economic terms. Substance abuse can be reasonably expected to produce impaired job performance, lost productivity, absenteeism, accidents, wasted materials, lowered morale, rising health care costs, and diminished interpersonal relationship skills. DCPS and AFSCME share a commitment to solve this problem and to create and maintain a drug-free work place. DCPS is responsible for the instruction and well-being of the students entrusted to its care. A consistent message needs to be communicated to DCPS students: the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of alcohol, and the misuse of prescription drugs is unacceptable. Policy Objectives To promote a healthy, safe working and learning environment; To seek the rehabilitation of employees with a self-admitted or detected substance abuse problem; To eliminate substance abuse problems in the work place; To provide a consistent model of substance-free behavior for students; To provide a clear standard of conduct for DCPS employees; and To hire drug-free employees. Policy Statement- Illegal Drugs Drug abuse by employees interferes with the educational and work process and compromises the safety and well-being of staff and students. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions: a. Employees on duty or on School Board property will not manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, or use illegal drugs, nor will they be under the influence of such drugs. . . . Policy Statement- Alcohol and Prescription Drugs Alcohol, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs are legal and readily available. Generally safe and acceptable, these drugs, when abused over time or used in combination with one another, can result in chemical dependency or poly-drug addiction. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions: Employees on duty or on School Board property will be free of intoxication from alcohol. Employees in safety-sensitive positions, as defined herein, will be free of measurable alcohol concentrations. Further, employees will not manufacture or use alcoholic beverages while on School Board property or on duty. . . . Policy Statement- Employee Physical Examination/Screening Health Services Drug screening will be included in all physical examinations; existing employees and contracted persons in covered positions will be screened under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991, and as required under existing labor contracts, statutes, State Board Rules, and Dade County Public Schools Board Rules. Circumstances under which testing may be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: observed use of illegal drugs and/or abuse of alcohol during work hours; apparent physical state of impairment of motor functions; marked changes in personal behavior on the job not attributable to other factors; . . . Drug and/or alcohol screening shall be conducted by Board approved, independent, certified laboratories utilizing recognized techniques and procedures as described in the DCPS Drug-Free Work Place Technical Guide, which is incorporated by reference into this Contract, and made a part thereof. The protocol for drug screening shall include a split sample and chemical immunoassay screening procedure. In the event initial test results are screened positive, such results will be confirmed and verified by the Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Test. Medical records and information relating directly thereto will be maintained in strict confidentiality. Any laboratory contract shall provide that the contractor's records are to be kept confidential under provisions of Florida laws. DCPS shall establish a system of maintaining records to include both the district's and the contractor's record of applicant and employee urinalysis and blood alcohol results. The contract and the record maintenance system must have specific provisions that require that employee records are maintained and used with the highest regard for employee privacy consistent with Florida's Public Records Act and the purpose of achieving a drug-free work place. DCPS recognizes that chemical dependency is an illness that can be successfully treated. It is the policy of DCPS, where possible, to seek rehabilitation of employees with a self-admitted or detected drug problem. Disciplinary action may be instituted against employees who the Board believes will not be assisted by rehabilitation or who have negatively impacted students and/or staff. Employees who have previously been referred for assistance or employees unwilling or unable to rehabilitate may be subject to appropriate action, pursuant to School Board policy, applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Rules, Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991, and applicable provisions of collective bargaining agreements. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows: A. Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); and, Conference-for-the-Record. Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record). The employee shall have the right to representation in Conferences-for-the-Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action. The Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of up to 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. . . . According to Article V, Section 18, of the AFSCME Contract, the term "workday," as used in the agreement, means "the total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties." The definition of "unauthorized absence," as used in the AFSCME Contract, is found in Article V, Section 27, thereof, which provides as follows: Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. The School Board's Rules As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including the aforementioned School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.05, as well as School Board Rules 6Gx13-3E-1.10, 6Gx13-4-1.06 , 6Gx13- 4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-4E-1.011.2 School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10 School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10 incorporates by reference the provisions of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual (Manual), including those set forth below, of which Respondent was timely made aware. Section 4 of the Manual describes "school bus aide responsibilities" and provides as follows: There is no requirement in either the law or the regulations that require the assignment of school bus aides to school buses. Dade County however, has elected to assign aides to some but not all of its school bus routes. Aides are not automatically placed on a bus because it is carrying exceptional education students. School bus aides are assigned to act as attendants on the school bus with the primary duty of maintaining order on the bus to allow the driver to give full attention to driving. Under the direction of the driver the aide works with children, school staff and parents in loading and unloading operations and in seeing to the needs of exceptional education students. The work of the aide must allow the driver to devote full time and attention to the safe operation of the vehicle. The aide must understand that the driver is in charge of the bus and is responsible for its safe operation. School Bus Aide responsibilities are: Bus aides must be clean and neat in appearance at all times (in prescribed uniform while on duty), must not use profane language, nor be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, nor use tobacco in the presence of students. Bus aides must abide by all safety rules and regulations which pertain to drivers but which do not relate specifically to driving tasks. Bus aides must be familiar with the rules of student conduct in order to assist in student behavior management and should have a working knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the various categories of exceptional children. The aide shall prepare and maintain an accurate seating plan. Bus aides should be familiar with the use and location of all safety or emergency equipment (e.g., first aid kit, fire extinguisher, reflector) and should assist the driver in using this equipment should the need arise. The school bus aide must understand and learn how to assist the driver should it become necessary to evacuate the bus in an emergency. In dealing with physically handicapped students, bus aides will assume primary responsibility for loading and unloading students, must be familiar with the operation of wheelchair lifts and use of restraining devices and other equipment used in the transportation of the handicapped. Additionally, bus aides must ensure that wheelchairs are properly attached to their tie-down devices, and that use of such devices is consistent with the specification requirements as determined by the year of the school bus. The school bus aide should assist the driver in preparing reports, checking the working condition of safety equipment, and performing routine cleaning jobs. The bus aide and driver must have a good working relationship. The school bus aide should become familiar with the route, with the loading and unloading procedures, and be attentive to the location of the bus at all times along the route. The aide should be able to guide a substitute driver when this becomes necessary. The school bus aide shall render first aid, if necessary, to the limits of his/her training and abilities, and seek prompt aid by the best possible means available. This assistance shall be limited to that which may be normally expected of a reasonably prudent person. The school bus aide shall check under every bus bench at the end of every run. The school bus aide shall sit with or behind the last student on the bus in order to observe and monitor all the students on the bus. As a reading of Section 4 of the Manual reveals, the duties of a school bus aide are safety-sensitive and involve direct contact with students. Section 9 of the Manual describes the Department's "attendance policy" and provides as follows: ATTENDANCE RESPONSIBILITES School bus driver/aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all work days in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule or contract. ABSENCES, AUTHORIZED For absences to be authorized, they must be reported to the driver's/aide's Transportation Center Dispatch Office in advance. This notice shall be made at the earliest possible time but not later than prior to the next scheduled report time. Even in an emergency every possible effort must be made to inform the Dispatcher. The supervisory staff evaluates the driver's adherence to this rule. Intent to return should be treated in the same manner. Proper forms shall be completed promptly for payroll purposes. ABSENCES, UNAUTHORIZED Unauthorized absences are subject to disciplinary action as prescribed under existing labor contracts. If a driver/aide does not report to work fifteen (15) minutes after the scheduled report time, or does not call in absent before their report time, the absence will be considered unauthorized. If time off is taken during a regular working school day without a supervisor's approval, this absence may also be considered unauthorized. NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCE Drivers/aides must notify their Transportation Center's Dispatch Office as soon as they have determined they cannot report to work. Do not make arrangements on your own for a substitute! All arrangements must be made by the Dispatch Office. If you will not be reporting for work on regular school days, call in immediately. Speak with the Dispatcher, or your Field Operations Specialist. If you cannot report to work because of an emergency situation, contact the Dispatch office as soon as you possibly can. If the situation requires you to leave the area, have a relative or friend contact the office in your place. If your absence will occur sometime in the future, give the Dispatch Office as much advance notification as possible. When you contact the dispatch office, explain the reason for your absence, how long you will be off, and the estimated date of your return. If you will be off work for more than one (1) day, you must contact the office each day, prior to your report time, with a complete update of the situation. The only times you do not have to contact the office on a daily basis are as follows: Admission to a hospital as a patient. Maternity leave A doctor's work release for a specified number of days Extended sick leave Approved leave of absence If you are out of town CHECK-IN POLICY All employees are expected to arrive at work on or before their scheduled report time. Drivers/aides will be given a five (5) minute grace period to report to work, during which no disciplinary or financial action will be taken. For example, if you are scheduled to report for work at 6:00 a.m., as long as you sign-in by 6:05 a.m. you will be allowed to go out on your assigned route, with no repercussions. Drivers/aides who report to work 6-15 minutes after their scheduled report time will be considered "tardy." Tardy drivers/aides will be permitted to work. However, the Dispatch Office may assign a stand-by or substitute driver/aide to the route of the tardy driver/aide. Driver/Aides more than 10 minutes late, but less than 16 minutes late, will be used as substitute drivers/aides and not allowed to drive their route. A record will be kept of the amount of time the employee was late. Lost time will be accumulated, and employees will be docked pay in 1/2 day increments. Drivers/aides who report to work 16 or more minutes after their scheduled report time will be considered "absent without leave" (AWOL). These persons will not be permitted to work. They will be placed on unauthorized leave-without pay (ULWOP) and shall be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the AFSCME Contract. Extenuating circumstances will be evaluated by the Center Director, and upon proper documentation, may not be held against the employee. Repeated occurrences, such as "car broke down for the third time this week," will not be considered extenuating. PAPERWORK It is the driver's/aide's responsibility to report to the supervisor to complete and/or produce all required paperwork related to their absence on the first workday upon their return to work. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in an unauthorized absence regardless of extenuating circumstances. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06 School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06 is the School Board's "tobacco-free work place" rule. It provides, in pertinent part, that, as of September 1, 1989, the "[u]se of tobacco products is not permitted . . . on school buses." School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011 School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011 addresses the subject of "absences and leaves" and provides as follows: No leave shall be granted for any reason without prior approval of the Superintendent of Schools except leave occasioned by sudden illness or emergency. Any employee who is absent for other than reasons of sudden illness, emergency, or without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. The Center's Check-In Procedures In August of 1994, a few months after she assumed her position as the director of the Center, Patricia Snell sent the following memorandum concerning "check-in procedures" to all of the school bus drivers and school aides assigned to the Center: All drivers and aides must pick-up their bus keys or tag from the key board in the Dispatch office. This is the method of checking in for your shift. If you do not check in, your route will be given to a substitute driver and you will be considered NO CALL/NO SHOW for that shift. All drivers and aides must return their keys and tags to the key board immediately after each shift. Dispatch will have a list of field trips and those drivers and aides will then turn their keys and tags in the slot in the dispatch office if after hours. If there is a problem with your bus, turn in bus keys with the D.R.R. to Dispatch. If you are assigned a spare, then the spare bus keys will be placed on your assigned key hook prior to your shift. Your regularly assigned bus will not be returned until your assigned spare bus is fueled, swept, trash is emptied, windows up and parked in the proper parking space. You need not sign in. The Office Helpers and Dispatchers will keep track of your arrival times by use of the key board. The Tardy Policy will be strictly enforced. Employees who are 6-15 minutes late These employees are "late" or "tardy" and appropriate progressive discipline will be initiated. Such employees will be permitted to work their shift. Employees who are 16 or more minutes late These employees are recorded as "unauthorized leave without pay" and are not permitted to work that shift. Appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated. Respondent received her copy of this memorandum on August 25, 1994. Previous (Pre 1994-1995 School Year) Warnings Given Respondent Regarding Attendance and Leave Unauthorized leave was a subject with which Respondent should have been familiar at the time she received Snell's memorandum inasmuch as Respondent had received disciplinary warnings from her supervisors concerning the matter in the past. For instance, on February 11, 1988, she had received a memorandum (dated February 3, 1988) from Jack Schee, the then- director of the Center, which read as follows: While signing the payroll on January 29, 1988, I became very disappointed to discover that you had already started the new fiscal year with unauthorized leave without pay. This carefree, unresponsible attitude has got to change. The department, and more specifically your co-workers, count on your presence daily to accomplish our mission to provide the students of the Dade County schools with whatever is necessary to enhance their education. All employees in the Department of Transportation are being monitored for poor attendance and unauthorized leave without pay. In order to improve attendance, I am prepared to follow-through with any necessary action, such as conferences or suspensions, as the situation merits. Our records indicate that this is your 1[st] unauthorized absence. Per AFSCME Contract, Article XII, Section I, item D, states: "An unauthorized absence for three consecutive work days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more work days during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination." In addition, Respondent had received written Operational Reminders for unauthorized absences on July 6, 1988, and September 5 and 7, 1989. Furthermore, on May 10, 1990, Schee had held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's attendance record. Schee subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. Schee's memorandum read as follows: A conference-for-the-record was held in my office on May 10, 1990 to discuss the attendance record of Ms. Jennifer Gardner, bus aide. In attendance at this conference were Ms. Gardner, Ms. Karen Crapps, route manager, and myself. Ms. Gardner stated that she did not want to have a representative present at the conference after I explained that she had the right to representation. I explained that on numerous occasions, the most recent being May 4, 1990, Ms. Gardner had failed to report to work and did not call the office to inform us of her absence. In addition, on May 4, 1990 Ms. Gardner reported to work thirty-five minutes late and missed her work assignment. On May 8, 1990, her assigned driver, Ms. Helen Spence, informed the office that Ms. Gardner reported to work on May 7, 1990[,] but that she fell asleep during most of her Southwood run. Ms. Gardner then stated that she had no comment to make concerning her attendance record. She stated that she did fall asleep on the bus but did not sleep the entire Southwood run. I concluded the conference by stating that her attendance record would be closely monitored and that if improvement was not made stronger disciplinary action would follow. I also informed Ms. Gardner that she would receive a memorandum of understanding concerning her attendance. The "memorandum of understanding" to which Schee referred was received by Respondent on May 16, 1990. It read as follows: On May 10, 1990 we held a conference-for-the- record concerning your attendance on the job and your failure to inform the office when you are not coming to work. I expressed the fact that I was extremely disappointed that your attendance has not improved since we have discussed this problem many times before. I then explained to you that if you continue to fail to report to work and do not inform the office then I would forced to request more serious disciplinary action. By way of this memorandum I am instructing you to inform the office at least 30 minutes before your reporting time on any occasion in which you cannot come to work. I am also instructing you that you will not be allowed to report to work late and expect to be paid for that time. If your performance does not improve I cannot guarantee your employment for summer school session. As acknowledgment that you have received this memorandum, and understand it, please sign below and return to me. A copy is provided for your purpose. Respondent had also received written Operational Reminders for unauthorized absences on May 6, 7 and 8, 1991. On May 15, 1991, she received a memorandum (dated May 9, 1991) from Schee concerning these unauthorized absences. The memorandum read as follows: During the payroll period ending May 9, 1991, you chose to take Unauthorized Leave Without Pay on May 6, 7 and 8th. You are professionally accountable to report to work on time and/or call the operations office no less than one-half hour prior to your check- in time, to inform them of your absence. Failure to call within the prescribed time constitutes Unauthorized Leave Without Pay. The attendance of all employees in our department is monitored daily. In order to improve attendance, I am prepared to follow through with any necessary action, such as a conference-for-the-record or suspension, as the situation merits. Our records indicate that this is your 3rd unauthorized absence. Per AFSCME Contract: Article XI, Section I, item D, states: "An unauthorized absence for three consecutive work days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totalling ten or more working days during the previous twelve-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination." Warnings Given Respondent Regarding Attendance and Leave During the 1994-1995 School Year On November 16, 1994, Respondent received a written Contact Report from the Center's coordinator, Wynona Sleeth, concerning Respondent's unauthorized absences, in which the following "reason for contact" was given: Six half days NCNS [No Call/No Show]. One whole [day] unauthorized. Any day you do not have time available is unauthorized. Any time you call in after due time is NCNS. Sleeth subsequently, on or about December 21, 1994, provided Respondent with the following Letter of Deficiency: This is to inform you that you have accumulated 17 Absences Tardies NC/NS 9 ULWP [unauthorized leave without pay] since 8-29-94. I am reminding you that 3 consecutive days of ULWP constitutes abandonment of position and may be subject to a recommendation for disciplinary action not excluding suspension and/or termination. An accumulation of 10 or more days of ULWP may warrant a recommendation for termination. Your job performance is important to us and we would like to assist you to improve. If you need assistance, please come to the operations office to discuss this matter. On May 11, 1995, Snell and Sleeth held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent concerning Respondent's attendance record. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on May 17, 1995, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: A Conference-for-the-Record was held in my office on May 11, 1995. Yourself, Ms. Wynona Sleeth, Coordinator and this administrator were present. The conference was held to discuss your attendance to date. You had notification of [your] right to union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed by the District since May 2, 1984. You were reminded of memos you had received and signed notifying you of this school year's absenteeism. A calendar highlighting the days you were absent was explained to you and you were given a copy of Article XI, Section 1(D) of the union contract. You were asked if you needed the Employee Assistance Program. You replied that you did not need it. I then read the [written absence from] worksite directive to you and what you were required to do from this point on and that non-compliance could lead to further disciplinary measures up to and including suspensions or termination. Respondent had received a copy of the "[written absence from] worksite directive" the day of the conference-for-the- record. It read as follows: Please be advised that you have been absent forty-four days (44) days from the worksite during the 1994/95 school year. Since your absence from duties adversely affects the effective operation of this worksite, you are apprised of the following procedures concerning future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to this administrator or the administrator on duty before your assigned shift. Absence for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to this administrator upon your return to the site. These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to maintain effective worksite operations. Please be assured that assistance will continue to be provided to facilitate your regular attendance. Non-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and could lead to further disciplinary action up to and including suspensions or termination. No "disciplinary action" (as that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) was taken against Respondent during the 1994-1995 school year notwithstanding her poor attendance record that year, which included unauthorized absences on the following 26 days: August 30, 1994; September 28, 1994; October 19, 20, 26 and 31, 1994; November 2, 10 and 28, 1994; December 22, 1994; January 25, 1995; February 8, 9, 14 and 16, 1995; March 7, 10 and 22, 1995; April 17, 26 and 28, 1995; May 1, 3, 17 and 26, 1995; and June 5, 1995.3 Respondent was offered a contract for the following school year and she accepted the offer. The 1995-1996 School Year On October 2, 1995, Respondent received a written Contact Report from Sleeth concerning Respondent's unauthorized absences, in which the following "reason for contact" was given: You had 9 hours of unauthorized absences for the pay period 8/25-9/7/95. You need to work on having a good attendance record. On October 18, 1995, Snell observed Respondent smoking a cigarette on a school bus. Respondent knew or should have known that such conduct was prohibited. Snell confronted Respondent and reminded her that smoking tobacco products on a school bus was forbidden. On December 12, 1995, Respondent received a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder from Sleeth concerning unauthorized absences on August 28 and 30, 1995; September 14, 1995; October 6 and 26, 1995; and November 6 and 29, 1995. On March 5, 1996, Snell held a conference-for-the- record with Respondent at which Respondent's attendance record was discussed. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on March 14, 1996, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: On March 5, 1996, at 10:15 a.m. a Conference- for-the-Record was held with you in the Office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Mr. Keith White, Administrative Assistant, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not want union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since February [sic] 5, 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . . The conference was held to review your record of Unauthorized leave. Since August 28, 1995, you have accumulated 15 unauthorized absences; they are as follows: 8/28, 8/31, 9/14, 10/6, 10/26, 11/6, 11/29, 12/4/95, 1/5/96, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/18, 1/19 and 1/23/96. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this worksite. You received a copy of Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract and these documents were reviewed with you. District Support Programs are available for you to contact at 995-7111 if you so desire. You stated that you understand the seriousness of the problem and will try to improve your attendance. Any further instances of Unauthorized Absences may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination. You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record. Respondent also received from Snell on March 14, 1996, the following written warning (dated March 11, 1996): As of January 23, 1996, you have been absent on 15 occurrences without authorization. As per the AFSCME contract, Article XI, Section 4-B[:] "Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence." You are hereby officially warned that if you continue to have unauthorized absences disciplinary action my result, up to and including suspension, termination, or non- reappointment. On April 30, 1996, Respondent received a written directive from Snell to report for another conference-for-the- record in Snell's office at 9:15 a.m. on May 7, 1996, to discuss her "unauthorized leave and job performance." Respondent failed to report as directed. The conference-for-the-record was rescheduled for May 17, 1996,and ultimately held on that date. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on May 28, 1996, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: On Friday, May 17, 1996, at 9:15 a.m. a conference-for-the-record was held with you in the Office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Mr. Keith White, Administrative Assistant, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not desire union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since February [sic] 5, 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . . The conference was held to review your record of unauthorized leave. Since August 28, 1995, you have accumulated 23 occurrences of unauthorized leave which total 12 1/2 days; they are as follows: 8/28, 8/31, 9/14, 10/6, 10/26, 11/6, 11/29, 12/4/95, 1/5/96, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/18, 1/19, 1/23/96, 4/2, 4/4, 4/17, 4/26, 4/29, 5/3, 5/13, and 5/16/96. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this worksite. Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract were reviewed. The District Support Agency was offered and is available for you and may be contacted at 995-7111 if you so desire. You agreed to call in as soon as you know you are going to be out and to bring documentation in the next working day. Your record of unauthorized absences will be reviewed and this review may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination. You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record. No "disciplinary action" (as that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) was taken against Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year notwithstanding her poor attendance record that year, which included unauthorized absences on the following 30 days during the regular school year: August 28 and 31, 1995; September 14, 1995; October 6 and 26, 1995; November 6 and 29, 1995; December 4, 1995; January 5, 8, 10, 12, 18, 19 and 23 1996; February 16, 1996; March 19, 21, 26 and 28, 1996; April 2, 4, 17, 26, and 29, 1996; May 3, 13, 16 and 17, 1996; and June 4, 1996.4 Respondent was offered a contract for the following school year and she accepted the offer. The 1996-1997 School Year On September 4, 1996, and October 2, 1996, respectively, Respondent reported to work six and ten minutes after the scheduled starting time (6:00 a.m.) of her morning shift. On both of these occasions she received a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder regarding her obligation to report to work on time. Respondent also received written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders for unauthorized absences in November of 1996, on the 5th (afternoon shift), 13th (afternoon and morning shifts), 14th (afternoon and morning shifts), 15th (afternoon shift), 20th (afternoon and morning shifts) and 26th (afternoon shift) of that month, and for reporting eight minutes late to work for her afternoon shift on November 25, 1996. Along with the written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning her November 5 and 13, 1996, unauthorized absences, Respondent was given an explanation of the provisions of Section 9 of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual and Article V, Section 27, of the AFSCME Contract, as well as copies of these provisions. The written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning Respondent's November 14, 15, 20, and 26, 1996, unauthorized absences, and her tardiness on November 25, 1996, were each accompanied by the following "verbal warning" (as that term is used in Article XI, Section 1A, of the AFSCME Contract): "Must adhere to attendance requirements per AFSCME Contract and Drivers Handbook." On December 6, 1996, Respondent was referred by Keith White, an administrative assistant at the Center, to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because of his "concerns" regarding Respondent's unauthorized absences. Respondent was advised of this supervisory referral on December 9, 1996. Respondent declined to participate in the School Board's Employee Assistance Program and continued to have erratic attendance. Respondent received, on January 5, 1997, and March 6, 1997, written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning her unauthorized absences and tardiness, each of which contained the following "written warning" (as that term is used in Article XI, Section 1A, of the AFSCME Contract): "Must adhere to attendance requirements per AFSCME Contract and Drivers Handbook." On March 11, 1997, Snell held a conference-for-the- record with Respondent, at which Respondent's attendance record was discussed. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on March 20, 1997, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows: On Tuesday, March 11, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. a conference-for-the-record was held with you in the office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Ms. Willie McKinney, Coordinator, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not desire union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since 5/2 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . . The conference was held to review your record of unauthorized leave and job performance. Since March 19, 1996 you have accumulated 28 whole days of unauthorized leave from 42 occurrences. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this work site. Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract, along with all attached warnings were reviewed. A referral to the District Support Agency [Employee Assistance Program] was made on December 6, 1996. The case was closed due to the fact that you declined to participate. You agreed to call in as soon as possible when you must be absent and to bring documentation in the next working day. You also agreed that you would not be absent unless absolutely necessary. Your record of unauthorized absences will be reviewed with Transportation Administration and the Office of Professional Standards and may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination. You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record. By memorandum dated March 27, 1997, Snell brought the matter of Respondent's "attendance problems" to the attention of Jerry Klein, the senior executive director of the School Board's Transportation Department, and inquired of Klein if he "would like to move forward with [the] dismissal of Ms. Gardner." Klein, on April 1, 1997, sent the following memorandum to Barbara Moss, an executive director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards: Ms. Jennifer M. Gardner, School Bus Aide, South Transportation Center, employee #145489, has accumulated 28 days of Unauthorized Leave Without Pay (ULWP) in the last 12 months. Attached please find supportive documentation from Ms. Pat Snell, Director, South Transportation Center. It is requested that Ms. Gardner be recommended for dismissal for violation of Article XI, Section 4(B) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, excessive absenteeism. Your assistance in obtaining Board approval is appreciated. After reviewing the matter, Moss (by memorandum received by Respondent on April 17, 1997) directed Respondent to appear at a conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1997, in the Office of Professional Standards to discuss Respondent's "attendance to date, and [her] future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools." The conference-for-the-record was held on April 30, 1997, as scheduled. Moss subsequently prepared and later, on June 3, 1997, provided to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Moss wrote the following: Action Taken You were offered an opportunity to resign your position with Dade County Public Schools. The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you during the conference concerning future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to the designated supervisor. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to the designated supervisor upon your return to the site. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board approved leave implemented if eligible to apply for leave. These directives are in effect as of the date of the conference and will be implemented to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit, to the services provided to students, and to insure continuity of the educational program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review [by] the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of disciplinary measures. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Employee Conduct, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, Non-instructional Personnel. You were advised of the high esteem in which employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects performance. You were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe working environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Senior Executive Director in the Office of Professional Standards and the Associate Superintendent in the Office of Labor Relations and Personnel Management. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion, or dismissal. You were apprised of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. On June 5, 1997, Respondent reported for work with the smell of alcohol on her breath. Furthermore, she was unsteady on her feet and her speech was slurred. After conferring with Klein and Moss, Snell directed Respondent to submit to alcohol and drug testing at the Baptist Medical Group's facility in Homestead, Florida. Respondent went to the facility that same day5 and submitted to breath-alcohol testing, which revealed that Respondent had a breath-alcohol level of .191 and that she was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. At the facility that day (June 5, 1997), Respondent also provided a urine specimen for testing. The bottle containing the specimen was labeled and sealed in a manner that made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. It was then sent, along with a partially filled out (by the collector and donor) D.O.T. Custody and Control Form, to LabCorp's laboratory in North Carolina for analysis and testing. The labeled and sealed container with the specimen and accompanying form were received by LabCorp on June 7, 1997. Adequate procedures were employed to ensure that the specimen was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that there had not been any tampering with the specimen. An initial immunoassay screening of Respondent's urine specimen indicated the presumptive presence of the unique metabolites produced when cocaine and marijuana are ingested and metabolized in the body. Additional laboratory testing of the specimen was then performed to verify the results of the immunoassay screen previously performed. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, a reliable and accurate method of confirmatory testing, was utilized. The gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of Respondent's urine specimen was positive for the presence of the cocaine and marijuana metabolites in concentrations consistent with, and indicative of, Respondent's ingestion of cocaine and marijuana prior to the collection of her urine specimen. The drug test results were reported to the School Board and the Medical Review Officer (at the National Medical Review Offices, Inc., in Los Angles, California). On June 10, 1997, Respondent received a memorandum from Snell directing Respondent to contact the Medical Review Officer "as soon as possible." On June 10, 1997, after examining the test results and speaking with Respondent, who admitted that she had used both cocaine and marijuana, the Medical Review Officer verified the test results. He determined, based upon his conversation with Respondent, that there was no legitimate medical explanation for the presence of the cocaine and marijuana metabolites in the urine specimen Respondent had provided. On June 11, 1997, Moss held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The results of the alcohol and drug tests to which Respondent had submitted were discussed at the conference. Upon being told of the test results, Respondent stated, "I don't know about the cocaine, but I am aware of the marijuana. I was very depressed and was with some friends who were using marijuana and joined them in using." She further stated that she did not drink alcoholic beverages when she worked. Also addressed at the conference were Respondent's unauthorized absences. During the 12-month period preceding the conference (June 12, 1996, to June 11, 1997), she had been absent without authorization on the following 37 days for a total of 147 hours or 24.5 "workdays," as that term is defined in Article V, Section 18, of the AFSCME Contract: July 2, 1996 (3 hours); July 29, 1996 (3 hours); October 31, 1996 (3 hours); November 5, 1996 (3 hours); November 13, 1996 (6 hours); November 14, 1996 (6 hours); November 15, 1996 (3 hours); November 19, 1996 (3 hours); November 20, 1996 (6 hours); November 26, 1996 (3 hours); December 4, 1996 (3 hours); December 11, 1996 (6 hours); December 13, 1996 (3 hours); December 18, 1996 (6 hours); December 19, 1996 (3 hours); December 20, 1996 (3 hours); January 8, 1997 (3 hours); January 22, 1997 (3 hours); January 23, 1997 (6 hours); January 27, 1997 (6 hours); February 3, 1997 (6 hours); February 7, 1997 (3 hours); February 12, 1997 (6 hours); February 18, 1997 (3 hours); February 19, 1997 (6 hours); February 20, 1997 (3 hours); February 24, 1997 (3 hours); February 26, 1997 (3 hours); March 3, 1997 (3 hours); March 20, 1997 (3 hours); March 24, 1997 (6 hours); April 15, 1997 (3 hours); April 21, 1997 (6 hours); April 24, 1997 (3 hours); May 12, 1997 (3 hours); May 23, 1997 (3 hours); and June 5, 1997 (3 hours). Respondent was given another assignment at the Center pending further School Board review of her employment At its July 23, 1997, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated a dismissal proceeding against her "for just cause, including but not limited to excessive unauthorized absence and violation of Drug-Free Work Place Policy."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1998.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to bus transportation for his children to and from Liberty Pines Academy, pursuant to section 1006.21(3)(a), Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.001; and operative rules of the St. Johns County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ryan A. Johnson, is the parent of two elementary-school-aged children who attend the Academy, a public school operated by Respondent. The Academy is located on Russell Sampson Road in northern St. Johns County. Petitioner and his children reside at 120 South Arabella Way in the St. Johns Forest subdivision (“the subdivision”) in St. Johns County. The subdivision is a large, gated, planned unit development in northern St. Johns County. The subdivision is roughly bounded by County Road 2209 (“CR 2209”) on the east, Russell Sampson Road on the west, and County Road 210 West (“CR 210”) on the south. Respondent, St. Johns County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Johns County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Respondent is required to provide transportation for public school students “whose homes are more than a reasonable walking distance” from their designated school, as defined by the rules of the State Board of Education. § 1006.21(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The State Board of Education defines “reasonable walking distance” as “not more than two (2) miles between the home and school.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-3.001(3). Background Prior to the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent provided bus transportation for Petitioner’s children as “courtesy riders,” students who live within two miles of their assigned school, but for whom transportation is provided by special authorization of the Superintendent. In this case, there was a direct route of two miles or less between the subdivision and the Academy. Part of the route proceeded through a wooded area out of sight of the roadway. Respondent deemed the route “too great a risk” for the students,1/ and provided bus transportation by special authorization. Prior to the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year, the Florida Department of Transportation built an interchange at the intersection of CR 2209 and State Road 9B (“SR 9B”), northwest of the subdivision. SR 9B is a divided highway that runs from Interstate 295, across Interstate 95, to CR 2209. In connection with the interchange construction, a new sidewalk was constructed connecting the existing sidewalk along CR 2209 to the Academy, via a route parallel to CR 2209 and a portion of the SR 9B entrance ramp. In the spring of 2018, Respondent’s transportation staff reevaluated the eligibility of students residing in the subdivision for bus transportation to and from the Academy. Based on the reevaluation, the Superintendent recommended termination of bus transportation to and from the subdivision. On October 9, 2018, Respondent voted to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation to terminate bus transportation between the Academy and the subdivision. The decision to terminate was based on Respondent’s finding that the subdivision is located within a reasonable walking distance from the Academy. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges Respondent’s decision to terminate bus transportation on three grounds. First, he asserts that Respondent incorrectly calculated the distance of the most direct traveled route between the Academy and his residence. Second, Petitioner asserts that the route constitutes a hazardous walking condition under state law. Third, Petitioner argues Respondent’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, oppressive, erroneous, an abuse of agency discretion, or an invalid exercise of delegated authority. Respondent’s Calculation To determine whether Academy students living in the subdivision would be eligible for bus transportation for the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent’s transportation staff calculated the walking distance from their homes to the Academy, measured from the end of their driveways, along interior subdivision sidewalks, through the North Arabella Way pedestrian gate, along the CR 2209 sidewalk to the Academy front door. Transportation staff determined this route to be the “most direct traveled route” to and from the school. Petitioner’s home is located 6,740 feet (1.276 miles) from the Academy, calculated based on the most direct traveled route. On that basis, Respondent determined Petitioner’s children are not entitled to bus transportation to and from the Academy. Petitioner disputes the calculation because the designated “most direct traveled route” requires access through the North Arabella Way pedestrian gate, which he argues is not accessible to school-aged children. The gate is equipped with a locking mechanism. Residents may gain access from the sidewalk into the subdivision at the gate with an electronic access card issued by the subdivision’s homeowner’s association (“HOA”). Pursuant to the subdivision’s master property owners’ association rules and regulations, no electronic access card may be issued to residents under the age of 15. The subdivision’s declaration of covenants and restrictions states, in pertinent part: Minors shall not be permitted to use the Common Area except under the supervision of an adult Owner or lawful occupant over the age of eighteen (18) years, except under such conditions as the Board may from time to time establish. (emphasis added). The Common Area is defined broadly to include “all real property dedicated to, owned by, or held by the Association, or intended by the Declarant to be devoted to the common use or enjoyment of the Members,” and includes streets, landscaping, fencing, signage, buffer areas, conservation areas, and “entry features,” as well as the clubhouse and recreational facilities. The subdivision’s controlling documents allow for exceptions to be made at the Board’s discretion. In other words, the subdivision’s HOA, not Respondent, has control over whether Academy students can access the North Arabella Way pedestrian gate. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence supporting a finding that Respondent is required to consider, in determining the most direct traveled route, whether access is limited by private property restrictions. Nothing in the state statute or rules require Respondent to consider whether a pedestrian entry point is privately controlled. The HOA has the authority to create an exception to the gate entry restriction, which apparently would not even require an amendment to the subdivision covenants and restrictions. Further, pursuant to rule 6A-3.001, the reasonable walking distance “shall be measured from the closest pedestrian entry point of the property where the student resides” to the closest school entrance. The rule provides that the pedestrian entry point of the residence “shall be where private property meets the public right-of-way.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-3.001(3). The public right-of-way is located 81 feet west of the North Arabella Way pedestrian gate, where the subdivision’s private property ends. The rule does not require Respondent to include in its measurement the distance between Petitioner’s driveway and the right-of-way. Thus, the rule does not anticipate consideration of any gate, or other entry structure, beyond the right-of-way. The distance from the public right-of-way outside the North Arabella Way entrance to the school entrance is 0.816 miles. Respondent’s much more generous calculation errs in favor of Petitioner’s children.2/ Hazardous Walking Conditions Even if the subdivision were less than two miles from the Academy, Respondent would be required to provide transportation for Petitioner’s elementary school children if they were subject to hazardous walking conditions on the most direct traveled route. See § 1006.21(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Petitioner argues that his children are entitled to bus transportation to and from the Academy because the most direct traveled route identified by Respondent subjects his children to hazardous walking conditions. Section 1006.23 defines hazardous walking conditions with respect to walkways parallel to a road, perpendicular to a road, and crossings over a road. In the instant case, Petitioner’s children will travel through the North Arabella Way pedestrian gate and follow a sidewalk parallel to CR 2209, and parallel, for a short distance, to the SR 9B entrance ramp. For walkways parallel to a road, “[i]t shall be considered a hazardous walking condition with respect to any road along which students must walk . . . if there is not an area at least 4 feet wide adjacent to the road . . . having a surface upon which students may walk.” § 1006.23(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. This requirement is referred to as a “suitable walk area,” and is not required to contain a paved sidewalk. The walk area parallel to CR 2209 and entrance ramp to SR 9B is improved with a continuous concrete sidewalk that is a minimum of five feet wide. The statute additionally requires, where the road is uncurbed, the walking area be offset three feet from the edge of the roadway. In the instant case, CR 2209 and SR 9B are both curbed roadways. Nevertheless, the sidewalk along the walking route is set off a minimum distance of three feet from the edge of the curb. That area is referred to as the “utility area” and is a grassed area between the edge of the curb and the edge of the sidewalk. There are no other applicable statutory components to the definition of hazardous walking condition. Despite the conformance of the route with the “suitable walk area” requirements, Petitioner maintains the walking route poses a hazardous walking condition because of the speed with which traffic travels the adjacent roadways, the proximity of the sidewalk to those roadways, and documented instances of vehicle accidents in the area, at least one of which resulted in an overturned car on the subject sidewalk. The posted speed limit on CR 2209 is 45 miles per hour. The posted speed on the SR 9B entrance ramp increases to 50 miles per hour. The posted increased speed limit is located on the ramp after the subject sidewalk “jogs” away from SR 9B to the Academy. Petitioner points to School Board Rule 8.13(8), which provides as follows: Maximum regard for the safety of students and due consideration for the protection of health of all students transported shall be primary requirements in the routing of buses, establishing student stops, appointing drivers, and in providing and operating transportation equipment. Petitioner argues that Respondent’s decision to terminate bus transportation to his children violates this rule. He argues that making his children walk along roadways with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour, and along an entrance ramp where cars are accelerating to a speed of 50 miles per hour, and where documented accidents have occurred, including one which resulted in an overturned car on the sidewalk, does not take into account maximum regard for their safety. He argues that maximum regard for their safety dictates providing bus transportation between the subdivision and the Academy. Petitioner’s argument fails because rule 8.13 applies to Respondent’s transportation program, not determinations of hazardous walking conditions. Subsection (8) governs decisions regarding bus routes, establishing bus stops, selecting and appointing drivers, and operating buses and equipment. Subsection (8) does not govern Respondent’s decisions whether to provide courtesy bus transportation to students within a reasonable walking distance to the Academy.3/ The route identified by Respondent for Petitioner’s children to walk to and from the Academy does not contain any hazardous walking condition as defined in section 1006.23(2)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns County School Board enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge and affirming its decision to terminate bus transportation for Petitioner’s children, unless a special authorization is granted by the Superintendent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 5th day of April, 2019. 1/ T.148:16-17.
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline her based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is employed within the School Board's transportation department as a school bus driver. She has worked for the School Board for approximately seven years, and has not been subjected to discipline prior to the incidents leading to this case. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the employment relationship between Respondent and the School Board was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Seminole County School Bus Drivers' Association, Inc., dated July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2006. Respondent is Hispanic. She was born in New York City, but was raised in Puerto Rico, speaking Spanish. She served as a field medic in the U.S. Army from 1980 to 1987. Respondent understands English, but is more comfortable communicating in Spanish. Kenneth Lewis has been the director of the School Board's Transportation Department since November 2003. Mr. Lewis is black. The Transportation Department consists of approximately 640 employees and 460 buses. Mr. Lewis is the supervising administrator and has three supervisors who report directly to him: the supervisor of routing, the supervisor of fleet services, and the supervisor of operations. Under the supervisor of operations are six area managers, each of whom is responsible for the day-to-day supervision of bus drivers and bus monitors. Raymond Williams and Kathy Dent are two of the area managers in the transportation department. Mr. Williams is black. Ms. Dent is white, and is a recent breast cancer survivor. Both Mr. Williams and Ms. Dent are monolingual speakers of English. Mr. Williams and Ms. Dent were Respondent's immediate supervisors during the 2005-2006 school year. Jennifer McKenzie has been a bus monitor for the School Board for about six years. A bus monitor's job is to team with the driver to assist children with disabilities on the bus. Ms. McKenzie is Hispanic. She speaks Spanish and English, but is more comfortable conversing in Spanish. Ms. McKenzie worked as a monitor on Respondent's bus from 2003 through September 2005. Early in the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent's bus was consistently running behind schedule. Ms. Dent met with Respondent about the situation. Respondent told Ms. Dent that Ms. McKenzie was arriving late to work, causing the bus to run late. Ms. Dent then spoke with Ms. McKenzie, who denied that she had been late coming to work. Ms. McKenzie later reported this conversation to Respondent, who in turn denied blaming the problem on Ms. McKenzie. For the next week, Respondent's bus continued to run late. Ms. Dent went onto Respondent's bus prior to the afternoon run to discuss the situation with Respondent and Ms. McKenzie. Ms. Dent stated that she was getting conflicting stories about the problem, and she needed to clear up matters. Ms. McKenzie stated that she had never caused the bus to be late. Respondent denied ever blaming Ms. McKenzie. Ms. Dent stated that Respondent had blamed Ms. McKenzie several times, most recently that morning when she came to Ms. Dent's office to state that Ms. McKenzie was the cause of the bus being late. Respondent continued to deny blaming Ms. McKenzie. Ms. Dent concluded the meeting by emphasizing to Ms. McKenzie that it was very important that she and Respondent work as a team, and that she was to be on board the bus at her scheduled time in the future. Ms. McKenzie again stated that she was not the cause of the problem, but said she would be there on time. Ms. Dent got off the bus. Both Ms. McKenzie and Ms. Dent testified that Ms. Dent did not raise her voice during this meeting or call Respondent a liar or make any other disparaging comment toward Respondent. After Ms. Dent left the bus, Respondent and Ms. McKenzie continued the conversation. Respondent told Ms. McKenzie that this proved her prior statements that Ms. Dent tells lies. Respondent pointed out that she had denied blaming Ms. McKenzie in front of Ms. Dent, and claimed that Ms. Dent never liked Hispanic people. Respondent stated that when Ms. Dent underwent chemotherapy, it had been applied to her brain rather than her breast and turned her brain to shit, which was why everything she spoke was shit. On September 7, 2005, it began to rain just as Respondent's bus was starting its route. Ms. McKenzie had difficulty closing the roof hatches, and Respondent stopped the bus to help her. Respondent then proceeded to drive the bus into a subdivision under construction, despite Ms. McKenzie's warning that there was no exit, and took several minutes driving through the narrow roads before she could find a way out. The dispatcher, Ronnie Dubose, called Respondent to ask why she was late. Respondent told Mr. Dubose it was because her monitor could not close the roof hatches. This angered Ms. McKenzie because the closing of the hatches had taken much less time than the trek through the subdivision. Ms. McKenzie asked Respondent why she blamed the monitor. Respondent denied having blamed Ms. McKenzie. Ms. McKenzie told Respondent that she heard her tell Mr. Dubose that it was Ms. McKenzie's fault the bus was late. Respondent insisted that Ms. McKenzie had misunderstood, and Ms. McKenzie was just as insistent that she had understood very well. In an effort to change the subject, Respondent began to denigrate Mr. Dubose, stating that "this stupid nigger" didn't even know what he was asking. Ms. McKenzie was upset about the entire situation, and especially about having been blamed once again for the bus running late. Immediately after the bus route was completed, Ms. McKenzie went looking for Ms. Dent to explain what had happened, but could not find her. She spoke to Mr. Williams about the situation, and asked him to explain her version of events to Ms. Dent. The next day, September 8, 2005, Ms. McKenzie was able to meet with Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams after the morning bus run was completed. She explained that the main reason the bus was late on the previous day was Respondent's getting lost in the subdivision construction. Ms. McKenzie indicated to Ms. Dent that there were other issues bothering her regarding Respondent. Ms. McKenzie told Ms. Dent that Respondent had called Mr. Dubose a "nigger," and that Respondent had said not to trust Ms. Dent and that Ms. Dent's chemotherapy had turned her brain to shit. Ms. McKenzie stated that this was not the first time she had heard Respondent call a black co-worker a "nigger." About a week earlier, Respondent had approached Mr. Williams to ask for more time to complete her route, and Mr. Williams declined to do so before checking his route sheet. When Respondent returned to the bus, she called Mr. Williams a "stupid nigger" in the presence of Ms. McKenzie. Ms. McKenzie told Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams that Respondent had referred to Euletha Byrd-Campbell, a black dispatcher, as a "nigger." Respondent also called Mr. Lewis a "stupid nigger" after he refused to allow Respondent to post a flyer about a Hispanic Christmas party for transportation personnel. Ms. McKenzie stated that "nigger" was Respondent's common term for black people, and that she called white people "rednecks." Mr. Williams and Ms. Dent convened a meeting with Ms. McKenzie and Respondent on September 9, 2005. The meeting was conducted in English. At this meeting, Respondent admitted to making the alleged remarks about Ms. Dent's chemotherapy. When Mr. Williams asked if she had ever referred to a fellow employee as a "nigger," Respondent initially denied using that term. Then she stated that she had used the term in reference to Mr. Williams, but only in repeating what another bus driver, Claudia Robles, had said about him. According to Respondent, Ms. Robles became upset and called Mr. Williams a "nigger" when she learned that Mr. Williams had used a gift card she had given him for Christmas to buy pizza at the mall. During the meeting, Respondent gave no indication that she was unaware of the English meaning and usage of the word "nigger." At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Williams directed Ms. McKenzie and Respondent to submit written statements summarizing their versions of the facts. Ms. McKenzie submitted her statement on September 13, 2005. Respondent never submitted a written statement. Later on September 9, 2005, Mr. Williams and Ms. Dent met with Claudia Robles. Ms. Robles denied being angry with Mr. Williams about the gift card and denied ever calling him a "nigger." At the request of Mr. Williams, Ms. Robles submitted a written statement on September 14, 2005. At some point during this initial investigation, Ms. Dent learned from another Hispanic bus driver, Jean Rodriguez, that Respondent had made statements about Ms. Dent's condition on a separate occasion from that described by Ms. McKenzie. In the transportation department's compound, there are picnic tables at which the employees sit during the work day. Ms. Rodriguez sometimes sat at the tables with Respondent, and heard Respondent claim to have told Ms. Dent "that the cancer she had on her breast went to her head and it turned like shit." Ms. Rodriguez told Respondent she was wrong and walked away from the table, while Respondent laughed.2 Mr. Williams and Ms. Dent advised Julie Murphy, the supervisor of operations in the transportation department, of the matters discussed at the meetings of September 8 and 9, 2005. Ms. Murphy passed the information along to Mr. Lewis, the director of the transportation department. After learning the details of the allegations, Mr. Lewis decided to conduct an investigation of the matter. He spoke to John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources and professional standards, and to Brenadette Hardy- Blake, the School Board's equity coordinator, to inform them of his intention to conduct an investigation. Mr. Reichert and Ms. Hardy-Blake agreed that Mr. Lewis should investigate.3 Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams each provided Mr. Lewis with a written statement summarizing the results of the interviews conducted on September 8 and 9, 2005. Mr. Lewis set up a series of interviews, commencing with the complainants, Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams. At the time of these interviews, Mr. Lewis had in hand the written statements filed by all the witnesses, including those of Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams. Mr. Lewis first interviewed Ms. Dent. He noted that she was very upset about Respondent's statements. Ms. Dent stated her intention to file a formal complaint against Respondent. At the hearing, Ms. Dent testified that Respondent's actions interfered with Ms. Dent's ability to act as Respondent's supervisor, because it was clear that Respondent had no respect for her. Ms. Dent felt personally violated by Respondent's comments about her cancer. Further, Ms. Dent believed that Respondent had undercut her authority with the other employees, particularly the black employees, who would not look at the white supervisors with the same respect knowing that Respondent was using the term "nigger" with impunity. Mr. Lewis next interviewed Mr. Williams. The two men discussed Mr. Williams' conduct of the earlier meetings. Mr. Williams stated that he wanted to pursue a formal complaint against Respondent. Mr. Williams did not believe he could continue to supervise Respondent knowing how she felt about him. He believed that Respondent's actions created a hostile work environment and fostered an environment of disrespect for his authority. Finally, Mr. Williams told Mr. Lewis that he could not be confident as to Respondent's treatment of children of color riding on her bus. On September 21, 2005, Mr. Lewis interviewed Respondent.4 At the outset of the interview, Mr. Lewis explained that Respondent had been accused of referring to Mr. Williams as a "nigger" in conversations with other transportation department employees, of making derogatory references to Ms. Dent's chemotherapy, and of telling the other employees not to trust Ms. Dent. Respondent denied calling Mr. Williams a "nigger." She stated that the word was not a part of her vocabulary, and denied even knowing the meaning of the word. Respondent admitted making comments about Ms. Dent, but told Mr. Lewis that she had only said that Ms. Dent's chemo had gone to her brain. Mr. Lewis asked Respondent if she could name anyone to corroborate her version of events. At first she said she could not, but thought more about it and gave Mr. Lewis the names of Ivette Sanchez and Millie Maldonado, two fellow bus drivers. Mr. Lewis interviewed the two bus drivers referenced by Respondent. Ivette Sanchez recalled Respondent telling her not to trust Ms. Dent, but was not sure whether she had heard Respondent make the comments about chemotherapy turning Ms. Dent's brain to shit. Ms. Sanchez was certain she had not heard Respondent refer to anyone as a "nigger." Mr. Lewis did not ask Ms. Sanchez to submit a written statement. Carmen "Millie" Maldonado told Mr. Lewis that she did not recall Respondent making the comments about Ms. Dent's chemotherapy, but that she might have heard Respondent make them at the picnic tables. Ms. Maldonado was similarly hazy regarding Respondent's use of the word "nigger." She might have heard Respondent say the word, but Respondent never said it directly to Ms. Maldonado. Mr. Lewis did not ask Ms. Maldonado to submit a written statement. At the hearing, Ms. Maldonado clarified that the only time she could recall hearing Respondent use the term "nigger" was in describing the controversy and investigation that is the subject of this case. Ms. Maldonado never heard Respondent refer to another person as a "nigger" or a "redneck." On September 22, 2005, Mr. Lewis interviewed Ms. McKenzie, questioning her about the items included in her written statement, which included Ms. McKenzie's version of Respondent's statements about Ms. Dent's chemotherapy and Respondent's references to Mr. Williams as a "nigger." Ms. McKenzie confirmed to Mr. Lewis that she had heard Respondent make the comments about Ms. Dent's chemotherapy turning her brain to shit and had heard Respondent refer to Mr. Williams, Mr. Dubose, and Mr. Lewis5 as "niggers" in conversations with her. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. McKenzie if she could have misheard Respondent using the Spanish term "negro" when she thought Respondent said "nigger." Ms. McKenzie stated that she knew the difference between the two words. She and Respondent spoke to each other mostly in Spanish, and there is no Spanish word for "nigger." Ms. McKenzie was positive that "nigger" was the word used by Respondent. Also on September 22, 2005, Mr. Lewis interviewed Ms. Robles, the bus driver whom Respondent claimed to have been quoting when she used the word "nigger" in relation to Mr. Williams. Ms. Robles denied ever calling Mr. Williams a "nigger," or even becoming angry over Mr. Williams' use of the gift card to buy pizza. She also told Mr. Lewis that she had heard Respondent refer to Mr. Williams and other black employees as "niggers." At the hearing, Ms. Robles testified that, after the Latin Christmas party in 2004, Respondent complained to her that the disc jockey had played nothing but "nigger music." Ms. Robles also testified that she heard Respondent say, "What does that nigger think he is, he's new," after Mr. Lewis refused her request to post the Latin Christmas party flyer. Ms. Robles testified that it was simply part of Respondent's vocabulary to call black people "niggers." Throughout the investigation, Mr. Lewis kept Mr. Reichert and Ms. Hardy-Blake apprised of his findings. At the conclusion of his investigation, Mr. Lewis was convinced that Respondent had made the offensive statements of which she stood accused. Mr. Lewis wrote a memorandum summarizing his investigation and concluding as follows: In summary, based upon the input and/or statements that were received from various persons who had knowledge of the incidents under investigation, it is determined that the driver, Ms. Mirella Hernandez, did: Refer to Mr. Ray Williams as nigger, violating District policy creating a hostile environment. Use the term nigger while referring to Ms. Euletha Byrd-Campbell, violating District policy creating a hostile environment. Use the term nigger while referring to Mr. Ronnie Dubose, violating District policy creating a hostile environment. Made the statement as described by Ms. Jennifer McKenzie, while referring to Ms. Kathy Dent, violating District policy creating a hostile environment. Tell other employees not to trust their Administrator violating rules of ethics, creating a hostile environment. It should also be noted that Ms. Hernandez has previously received less than satisfactory rating on previous assessments related to her ability to maintain a professional relationship and attitude toward colleagues and subordinates. Mr. Lewis submitted his report and copies of all written statements to Mr. Reichert, Ms. Hardy-Blake, Ms. Dent, Mr. Williams, and Respondent. Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams met with Ms. Hardy-Blake, and submitted witness affidavits for her file. After the report was submitted, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Reichert had a lengthy meeting with Deputy Superintendent George Kosmac. At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Kosmac concurred with Mr. Lewis' recommendation that Respondent's employment with the School Board should be terminated. Mr. Lewis drafted a letter to Respondent, dated October 7, 2005, which was hand-delivered to Respondent on October 10, 2005, along with Mr. Lewis' report and all of the witness statements collected during the investigation. The letter stated, in relevant part: Ms. Julie Murphy, Supervisor of Operations, reported to me that you had made disparaging and racist comments to other transportation employees concerning Area Managers Kathy Dent and Ray Williams, and other personnel, within the transportation community. It was also stated that you were heard telling employees not to listen to Kathy Dent, circumventing her ability to carry out her duties as an Area Manager. I spoke to you on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, inquiring about the allegations lodged against you. You admitted saying to other employees in reference to Ms. Dent, "the chemo went straight to her head," but denied saying, as alleged by others that, "Kathy's chemo, instead of being to her breast, they applied it to her brain and that is why her brain was burnt and the only thing left was shit in her brain and that is why she only speaks shit." You also denied ever referring to Ray Williams, Euletha Byrd- Campbell, Ronnie Dubose and Kenneth Lewis6 as "niggers," as alleged. You also denied telling other employees not to listen to Ms. Dent. In conversations with Area Managers, Kathy Dent and Ray Williams, they confirmed that you did in fact openly admit to the allegations lodge [sic] against you and went on to state that you made the admissions without remorse. They also said that you admitted, in the presence of Ms. Jennifer McKenzie, to the allegations lodged against you. In conversation with Ms. Jennifer McKenzie, Ms. Claudia Robles, and Mr. Jose Romero on September 21st, 22nd, and October 4th, they all confirmed that they heard you, at some point in time, make one or all of the statements alleged, in reference to the aforementioned parties. As a result of the facts found during our inquiry, it is determined that you knowingly made disparaging statements to other employees in reference to Kathy Dent, Ray Williams, Euletha Byrd-Campbell, Ronnie Dubose and Kenneth Lewis. Your actions constitute conduct that is unbecoming of an employee of the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, and further represents a violation of School Board policies 6.06—- Employee Nondiscrimination and 9.63-— Civility and Conduct of Parents, Other Visitors to Schools and School District Facilities, and District Employees. Therefore, I am recommending to the Superintendent that you be suspended from your duties, and further that your employment with the Seminole County Public Schools Transportation Services, be terminated for the reasons and violations referenced above. After Mr. Lewis' recommendation and accompanying materials were delivered to Respondent, Mr. Reichert met with William Vogel, the School Board's superintendent, to discuss the termination recommendation. Dr. Vogel concurred in the recommendation and directed Mr. Reichert to draft a letter, to be issued over Dr. Vogel's signature, suspending Respondent from her duties and recommending to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from her position. Dr. Vogel's letter, dated December 8, 2005, stated in relevant part: I have received a copy of the letter that you received from Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Director of Transportation Services wherein he has recommended that you be suspended from your duties, and further that your employment be terminated. His recommendation is based upon the fact that you made statements and/or demonstrated conduct that constitutes conduct unbecoming of an employee of the Seminole County Public Schools, and is a violation of School Board policy 6.06 and 9.63. After a careful and lengthy review of the facts surrounding this recommendation, which is supported by the information contained in [the] investigation completed by Mr. Lewis, be advised that I have accepted the recommendation as submitted by Mr. Lewis. Therefore, pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes, be advised that you are suspended with pay effective at the close of business on December 9, 2005. Additionally, be advised that I will file a recommendation with the School Board of Seminole County at their regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 10, [2006], that you be suspended from your duties without pay effective January 11, 2006, for the reason referenced above. . . . Further be advised that I will file an additional recommendation with the School Board of Seminole County, Florida that your employment be terminated for the reasons and violations identified above. . . . Mr. Lewis handed Mr. Vogel's letter to Respondent on December 9, 2005. A few days later, Paul Sanchez, Executive Director of the Umbrella Organization for the unions representing non-management employees such as Respondent, contacted Mr. Reichert on Respondent's behalf. Mr. Sanchez and another union representative met with Mr. Vogel, Mr. Reichert, and Mr. Kosmac. Mr. Sanchez contended that the entire matter was a misunderstanding centered on Respondent's difficulty with English. He also contended that the investigation was flawed because Mr. Lewis, Mr. Williams and Ms. Dent were intimately involved despite the fact that they were the alleged victims of Respondent's derogatory comments and racial slurs. Mr. Sanchez believed that the investigation became very emotional, and that the situation could be resolved by transferring Respondent. Dr. Vogel agreed to place a hold on his recommendation pending an inquiry by the School Board's legal staff into the issues raised by Mr. Sanchez. Following the legal staff's review of the investigation, Dr. Vogel decided to move forward with his recommendation that Respondent be suspended without pay and terminated as a School Board employee. By letter, dated February 28, 2006, Dr. Vogel informed Respondent's representatives of his intention. At the final hearing, several of Respondent's co- workers testified on her behalf. Jose Romero, an area manager who acted as translator during Ms. McKenzie's interview with Mr. Lewis, testified that he has known Respondent as a co-worker for over four years and never heard her use the word "nigger" or "redneck." Mr. Lewis' report contained the following paragraph: During the interview with Ms. McKenzie, Mr. Jose Romero accompanied her to translate or explain anything she did not understand. When the question of the use of the word nigger was asked to Ms. McKenzie, Mr. Romero said that Ms. Hernandez uses the term when referring to Ray Williams, Euletha Byrd- Campbell and Ronnie Dubose. He heard her use it at the table where many of the Hispanics congregate in front of the dispatch office. At the hearing, Mr. Romero flatly denied making the statements attributed to him in Mr. Lewis' report. Mr. Lewis was not questioned about this contradiction. Mr. Romero testified that he knew Respondent and Ms. McKenzie as co- workers, and considered Ms. McKenzie to be his friend. Mr. Romero attended the meeting in Mr. Lewis' office at the request of Ms. McKenzie, who did not trust the other translators proposed by Mr. Lewis, because they were all friends of Respondent. Ms. McKenzie testified that she trusted Mr. Romero. Ms. McKenzie's testimony allays any suspicion that Mr. Romero changed his testimony to protect Respondent. It appears more likely that Mr. Lewis' report incorrectly attributed the quoted statements to Mr. Romero.7 Mr. Lewis did not request a written statement from Mr. Romero. Carmen Padilla, a bus monitor who worked on Respondent's bus for a little more than one month, testified that she never heard Respondent use the term "nigger." Jose Galindo, a bus driver who shared a household with Respondent for ten years, testified that it is "impossible" that the word "nigger" could be part of Respondent's everyday vocabulary. Mr. Galindo testified that he has never heard Respondent use the word. Respondent and he socialized with black friends, and she never called them "niggers." Mr. Galindo did not recall ever hearing Respondent use the term "redneck." Respondent testified on her own behalf at the hearing. Respondent's version of the incident on the school bus was different from that of Ms. Dent and Ms. McKenzie. According to Respondent, Ms. Dent did not appear interested in hearing what happened to make the bus run late. Ms. Dent had already met with Ms. McKenzie and apparently accepted Ms. McKenzie's version of events. Respondent testified that Ms. Dent told her she lacked common sense and called her a liar, and that it was her anger at being so labeled that caused Respondent to lash out with her comment that the "chemo went up to her head" after Ms. Dent left the bus. Respondent also recalled telling Ms. McKenzie that what Ms. Dent had said was "bullshit." Respondent testified that, at the meeting with Ms. Dent, Mr. Williams, and Ms. McKenzie, she told Ms. Dent that she meant no harm by her comments, that she was merely striking out in anger. Respondent tried to explain that the source for "the comment about her chemo going to her head" was a "very famous [Latino] song" with a lyric that says "the bilirubin goes up to your head."8 Ms. Dent was screaming at Respondent, telling her that if she had said she was sorry, Ms. Dent would have forgiven her. Respondent testified, "How can you say that you're sorry to a person that is screaming, that is agitating things, and that I see there are lies?" Respondent could not remember ever telling people not to trust Ms. Dent. At the meeting, Respondent felt cornered. She testified that she was never informed that she was entitled to have a union representative present. Respondent could not recall who they said was accusing her of using the word "nigger," but Respondent brought up the name Claudia Robles. Mr. Williams asked Respondent if she had ever called him a "nigger," and Respondent denied having done so. Respondent told Mr. Williams that she had used the word when translating a letter for another bus driver. The letter apparently described a situation involving Mr. Williams and this other driver, and referred to Mr. Williams as a "nigger." Respondent testified that Ms. Dent threatened her, saying that "we're gonna take this all the way . . . I'm going to make sure that you get suspended, I'm going to do everything possible to get you suspended." From this statement, Respondent surmised that she would have a meeting with Mr. Lewis in the near future, after which she would be fired. Respondent denied that Mr. Williams or Ms. Dent ever asked her to submit a written statement. Respondent testified that, after the meeting with Ms. Dent, Mr. Williams, and Ms. McKenzie, she went to the picnic tables where the transportation department employees gathered between shifts. Everyone at the table knew something was going on, and people asked Respondent why she had been called in for a meeting with her supervisors. Respondent then told them she was being accused of using the word "nigger," and of making the comments concerning Ms. Dent's chemotherapy. Respondent could not remember who called her in to meet with Mr. Lewis on September 21, 2005. She walked into the room and saw that Mr. Lewis, Ms. Dent, and Mr. Williams were already there. She was not told that she could bring a union representative to the meeting, and was not offered a translator. Mr. Lewis first questioned Respondent about her driving, then asked about the "nigger" and chemotherapy comments. Respondent testified that she read from a letter she was composing, to make Mr. Lewis "see my culture, where I come from, something like that." Respondent never finished the letter and did not submit it to Mr. Lewis. Respondent told Mr. Lewis that she didn't know the meaning of the word "nigger," and at the hearing, claimed she was not sure if she knew it was a racial slur at the time of the meeting with Mr. Lewis.9 She testified that during seven years in the Army, she never heard anyone say the word. She lived in Alabama, Georgia, and Texas, and never heard anyone say "nigger." Respondent testified that she later had a second meeting with Mr. Lewis regarding allegations by Ms. Robles that Respondent was harassing her. Respondent testified that during this meeting, Mr. Lewis asked her if she had called him a "nigger." Respondent denied the allegation, and tried to make Mr. Lewis understand that Ms. Robles was the person who used the word "nigger." Respondent testified that Ms. Robles used the word "nigger" several times, on social occasions away from work. Respondent stated that Ms. Robles' pronunciation was so poor that the word was unintelligible. Respondent understood what Ms. Robles was saying only when another woman chastised Ms. Robles for using the word. Respondent testified that Ms. Robles also used the word "redneck." Respondent testified that she never referred to any transportation department employee as a "nigger." The word is not part of her day-to-day vocabulary. Respondent uses the Spanish word "negro" "all the time, because that's the word I was raised with." The term simply denotes color, and does not carry the derogatory meaning of "nigger." Respondent's testimony is not persuasive as to the issue of her use of the word "nigger." The greater weight of the evidence supports the finding that Respondent did refer to Mr. Williams, Ms. Byrd-Campbell, Mr. Dubose, and Mr. Lewis as "niggers," that she did so because the word "nigger" was simply her manner of referring to black people when they angered her and were not present to hear, and that she knew the derogatory meaning of the word. Respondent's changing story as to when she learned the meaning of the word did not enhance her credibility. She initially denied ever having used the term "nigger," then admitted to using the word when quoting Ms. Robles, then later claimed not to have known the meaning of the word. The fact that several employees claimed not to have heard her use the term does not establish that Respondent never used the term. At most, it establishes that there were some fellow Hispanic employees with whom Respondent did not feel comfortable in indulging her use of the word. Respondent's testimony, as well as that of her supportive witnesses, does raise questions about the investigative process employed by Mr. Lewis. Respondent testified that Mr. Lewis never asked her to submit a written statement, testimony that is somewhat corroborated by the fact that Mr. Lewis did not ask Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Maldonado, or Mr. Romero to submit written statements. Further, Mr. Romero credibly denied having made the statements attributed to him in Mr. Lewis' report. Taken together, these facts establish that Mr. Lewis' report functioned more as a brief for the prosecution than as an even-handed investigative summary. Nonetheless, the ultimate finding that Respondent called various employees "niggers" rests on the credibility of Ms. McKenzie and Ms. Robles as against Respondent, which is unaffected by any flaws in the investigative process. All of the relevant witnesses testified in person at the hearing, and the undersigned was able to make an independent judgment as to their veracity and credibility, without reliance upon Mr. Lewis' report. School Board Policy 6.06, adopted July 19, 2005, is titled "Employee Nondiscrimination Policy." Its stated purpose is as follows: The Seminole County School Board is committed to providing educational and work environments free of all forms of harassment or discrimination. No employee or applicant for employment shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination or harassment in any program, activity, employment, or conditions of employment in Seminole County Public Schools on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, gender, disability, marital status, age, religion, political or religious beliefs, or any other basis prohibited by law. Nor shall any person be subjected to retaliation for reporting or complaining of alleged discrimination or harassment or participating in any way in the investigation of such allegations. The employees of Seminole County Public Schools shall not engage in such discrimination or harassment, and such conduct is also prohibited for any third party while participating in any activity sponsored by Seminole County Public Schools. The definition of "racial harassment" is set forth at School Board Policy 6.06 II.B. as follows: Racial harassment is verbal (oral or written) or nonverbal (physical or graphic) conduct that degrades or shows hostility or aversion toward any employee based upon race, color or national origin when such conduct substantially interferes with the employee's job performance or the terms and conditions of his/her employment, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Racial harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following conduct: Epithets and slurs; Negative stereotyping; Threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; or Written or graphic material that shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group. There can be little question that "nigger" constitutes a racial epithet and/or slur, and that Respondent's verbal conduct in using the term degraded or showed hostility toward fellow employees based upon race.10 The more difficult question is whether Respondent's verbal conduct created "an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment." Respondent never used the term "nigger" directly against the persons at whom the epithet was directed, and she was not in a supervisory capacity as to those persons, two factors that militate against terming Respondent's actions "intimidating" in the common workplace sense of the term. However, the testimony of Mr. Williams as to the hostile and offensive work environment created by Respondent's verbal conduct is persuasive. Mr. Williams credibly believed that his effectiveness as a supervisor was undermined by Respondent. He felt hurt and disrespected, and did not think he could continue to work with Respondent. The testimony of Ms. Dent was also persuasive. Though she was not the target of the racial epithet, Ms. Dent credibly believed that her authority over and respect from the department's black employees could only be undermined if she allowed Respondent to use the term "nigger" openly and with impunity.11 It is found that Respondent's verbal conduct constituted "racial harassment" as defined in School Board Policy 6.06 II.B. Employee and student training procedures are set forth in School Board Policy 6.06 IV., as follows: IV. Training All employees and students shall receive training each year to insure that the entire education community understands this policy, what constitutes prohibited harassment, discrimination, or retaliation and the consequences for engaging in such conduct. Each principal and cost center supervisor shall ensure that this policy is specifically reviewed with employees, including administrators, instructional personnel, and noninstructional personnel, with volunteers, and with students on an annual basis. It is the responsibility of each supervising administrator in the school system to ensure that this policy is reviewed with all other employees over which he/she directly or indirectly has supervisory authority. Employees must clearly understand that conduct believed by them to constitute harassment should be reported to the principal, supervising administrator, or the District Equity Coordinator. They also must clearly understand that if an employee complains to them regarding alleged harassment, they should immediately refer that employee to the principal, the supervising administrator, or the District Equity Coordinator for appropriate action under this policy. Any personnel who may be called upon to conduct investigation must clearly understand how to do so, including the circumstances in which immediate or interim measures are necessary or appropriate. All employees, as well as students and volunteers, also must clearly understand that they and others supporting them will not suffer any retaliation or recrimination on account of their reporting of any alleged harassment or on account of participating in an investigation of any alleged harassment. Respondent contends that the annual in-service training sessions provided to transportation department employees by the School Board were inadequate to place Respondent fully on notice as to the meaning of "racial harassment." Respondent admitted that she attended such a training session on July 25, 2005, of which a videotape was admitted into evidence. The "training session" was a small part of a two-hour transportation department general meeting to prepare for the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Lewis presided over the meeting, and recognized some drivers for perfect attendance and gave out safe driving awards. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Kosmac addressed the assembly. Other School Board employees gave presentations on issues including road closings, field trips, payroll and union negotiations, training, care for exceptional students, the employee assistance program and employee benefits. After all of these presentations, Mr. Lewis announced that a video was about to be shown dealing with sexual and racial harassment and fraternization. He told the assembly that "we are required" to show the video, and that each employee present would be required to sign a document verifying that he or she had watched the video. The video was started without further introduction. A title on the screen indicated that it was a taped School Board training session from April 2005 on the topic of sexual and racial harassment and fraternization.12 The presenter identified herself as Sally Jenkins from the professional training department. Ms. Jenkins commenced her presentation with a discussion of sexual harassment, setting forth the definition and examples of "quid pro quo" sexual harassment and "hostile environment" sexual harassment. As Ms. Jenkins was going through examples of what constitutes "hostile environment" sexual harassment, the tape abruptly jumped into the middle of her discussion of racial harassment. Lost in this jump was any discussion of examples of racial harassment. It was unclear whether the jump was caused by a problem in duplicating the tape that was presented into evidence, or whether this was actually what was shown to the assembly on July 25, 2005.13 Respondent complains that the "training" provided by the School Board was entirely inadequate to meet the requirements prescribed in School Board Policy 6.06 IV. The entire presentation was in English, and no examples of what constitutes a "hostile environment" or "racial harassment" was provided in the video presentation. Respondent contends that the presentation was not designed to ensure that Spanish- speaking employees "clearly understand" what constitutes prohibited harassment or discrimination. Respondent correctly observes that this taped training presentation was treated in a pro forma manner at the July 25, 2005, assembly. If the videotape in evidence correctly conveys what was shown to the assembly, much of Ms. Jenkins' presentation on racial harassment was not shown. However, these objections would give rise to a defense only if Respondent could plausibly claim that she relied on the training for her knowledge of the matters giving rise to this case. In other words, Respondent would have to claim she was unaware that "nigger" was a racial epithet or that promiscuous use of the term "nigger" in the workplace would be deemed hostile and offensive by her co-workers, and that she was completely reliant on the School Board's training to be made aware of these matters. Respondent's contention that she did not know the meaning of "nigger" has been rejected. Whatever the inadequacies of the training provided at the July 25, 2005, assembly, Respondent cannot plausibly claim them as a defense in this case. The guidelines for School Board investigations of harassment or discrimination are set forth at School Board Policy 6.06 VI., as follows, in relevant part: Guidelines for Investigations At any time, the District Equity Coordinator may, in his/her discretion, appoint an appropriate person to investigate a report of harassment or discrimination. All such investigators will be appropriately trained in how to conduct an investigation pursuant to this policy and will not be persons alleged to have any involvement in the situation at issue. As found above, Mr. Lewis was the district equity coordinator prior to becoming director of transportation. As district equity coordinator, Mr. Lewis received extensive training in the substantive areas of harassment and discrimination and in the proper procedures for conducting investigations. Aside from his status as one of the persons whom Respondent allegedly called a "nigger," there is no question that Mr. Lewis was "an appropriate person to investigate" the allegations brought to him by Ms. Dent and Mr. Williams.14 The relevant portion of School Board Policy 6.06 VII, relating to the School Board's grievance procedure, is as follows: Grievance Procedure The following steps will be followed if an employee feels that he/she has experienced prohibited discrimination or harassment at work or during an activity sponsored by Seminole County Public Schools: Level I: If the employee believes that he/she has been discriminated against or harassed, the employee should file a written complaint with his/her building principal, supervising administrator, or the District Equity Coordinator. If the building principal or supervising administrator is allegedly involved, the complaint should be filed directly with the District Equity Coordinator. If the complaint is filed with the principal or supervising administrator, he/she shall immediately forward a copy to the District Equity Coordinator. The principal, the administrator, or the District Equity Coordinator must then schedule a conference with the employee to find out more about the complaint and explore possible resolutions. The conference should be held as soon as possible in light of the nature of the allegations and, in any event, must be held within five (5) working days of the date of filing. (Emphasis added) Respondent contends that the underscored language should have required Mr. Lewis to recuse himself from the investigation due to his personal involvement in the allegations against Respondent. Ms. Hardy-Blake testified that the School Board's interpretation of the quoted language is that a supervisor should not conduct the investigation only where he or she is the alleged perpetrator of the harassment or discrimination. Nothing in the policy prevented Mr. Lewis from conducting the investigation. As suggested above, many of Respondent's complaints about the process would have been rendered nugatory had Mr. Lewis stepped aside upon learning that Respondent was alleged to have called him a "nigger." Mr. Lewis credibly testified that the allegation had no effect on his conduct of the investigation, but Ms. Hardy-Blake or Mr. Reichert should have considered the appearance of allowing the alleged subject of an inflammatory racial epithet to continue as the lead investigator. However, as found above, the ultimate finding that Respondent called various employees "niggers" rests on the credibility of Ms. McKenzie and Ms. Robles as against Respondent, which is unaffected by any flaws in the investigative process. This finding is based on the sworn testimony and demeanor of the witnesses at the final hearing, not on the statements in Mr. Lewis' report. Respondent's comments about Ms. Dent, though outrageous and cruel, were not violative of the policy against racial harassment. The School Board has alleged that Respondent's conduct violated School Board Policy 9.63, titled "Civility and Conduct of Parents, Other Visitors to Schools and School District Facilities, and District Employees." The policy provides as follows, in relevant part: The School Board recognizes that education of children is a process that involves a partnership between a child's parents, teacher, school administrators, and other school and School Board personnel. The School Board recognizes that parental participation in their child's educational process through parent/teacher conferences, classroom visitation, serving as a school volunteer (Dividend), serving as a field trip chaperone, PTA participation, and other such service is critical to a child's educational success. For that reason the School Board welcomes and encourages parental participation in the life of their child's school. However, from time to time parents and other visitors to schools and District facilities sometimes act in a manner that is disruptive to a school or other District facility and which is threatening and/or intimidating to school and District employees. The purpose of this policy is to provide rules of conduct for parents, other visitors to schools, and District employees which permit and encourage participation in school or District activities, while at the same time enabling the School Board to identify and deal with those behaviors which are inappropriate and disruptive to the operation of a school or other District facility. It is the intent of the School Board to promote mutual respect, civility, and orderly conduct among district employees, parents, and the public. It is not the intent of the School Board to deprive any person of his or her right to freedom of expression. The intent of this policy is to maintain, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, a safe, harassment-free workplace for teachers, students, administrators, other staff, and parents and other members of the community. In the interest of presenting teachers and other employees as positive role models, the School Board encourages positive communication and discourages disruptive, volatile, hostile, or aggressive communications or actions. Expected Level of Behavior School and School District personnel will treat parents and other members of the public with courtesy and respect. Parents and other visitors to schools and District facilities will treat teachers, school administrators, other school staff, and District employees with courtesy and respect. Unacceptable/Disruptive Behavior Disruptive behavior includes, but is not necessarily limited to: Behavior which interferes with or threatens to interfere with the operation of a classroom, an employee's office or office area, areas of a school or facility open to parents/guardians and the general public and areas of a school or facility which are not open to parents/guardians and the general public; Using loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper; Threatening to do bodily or physical harm to a teacher, school administrator, school employee, or student regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes or may constitute a criminal violation; Damaging or destroying school or School Board property; Any other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, a school classroom, or any other School Board facility; or Abusive, threatening, or obscene e- mail or voice mail messages. The remaining sections of the policy deal with the procedure by which a parent may file a complaint as to a staff member's behavior, the authority of school personnel to direct disruptive persons to leave school or School Board premises, the authority of School Board personnel to deal with members of the public who are verbally abusive, and the procedure by which School Board employees should deal with abusive, threatening or obscene e-mail or voice mail messages. Respondent correctly observes that School Board Policy 9.63 makes no mention of employee discipline for failure to abide by its provisions. Read as a whole, the Civility Policy seems generally directed at the interactions of School Board personnel with the public, and more particularly at protecting School Board personnel from abusive language and behavior by members of the public. Absent some clearly defined enforcement mechanism as to employees, the Civility Policy appears to be an aspirational rather than a formal disciplinary standard. This finding, however, begs the question of whether Respondent's conduct toward Ms. Dent may be cause for discipline under the general heading of "conduct unbecoming" a School Board employee, pursuant to case law precedent. In that sense, School Board Policy 9.63 II may be read as setting forth examples of behavior that fall into the category of "conduct unbecoming" a School Board employee, thereby giving the employee notice that such behavior is unacceptable and subject to discipline. This issue is resolved in the Conclusions of Law below.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Seminole County School Board, issue a final order that terminates the employment of Respondent, Mirella Hernandez. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2007, 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 16th day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner established “just cause” to terminate Respondent's employment as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Moore has been a school bus driver in Seminole County since 2009. The operative facts are not in dispute. On October 24, 2012, Mr. Moore was beginning his morning school bus route. After picking up two students, Mr. Moore, at approximately 6:45 a.m., pulled into a parking lot of a local doughnut shop and parked the bus. Mr. Moore exited the bus, left the school bus door open with the motor idling. Mr. Moore returned within three minutes with a bagel and a soft-drink. All of these events were captured on video, and Mr. Moore does not dispute that this early morning breakfast stop occurred. Mr. Moore's only explanation is that he was not thinking, and had been under a lot of personal stress at the time. The School Board has a specific policy that requires a school bus driver to operate the bus with "maximum regard for the safety of students and due consideration for the protection of health of all students . . . ." School Board Policy 8.31. Moreover, a bus driver is prohibited from using the bus for personal business, and prohibited from leaving the bus' motor unnecessarily idling while in the vicinity of students. School Board Policies 8.48, and 6.22(J). In addition to the School Board Policies, the School Board bus drivers are required to follow the procedures set out in the School Bus Operations Handbook (Handbook). Seminole County Public Schools, Transportation Services, School Bus Operations Handbook, (amended July 2012). Importantly, for this case, the Handbook expressly provides that a driver shall never leave students unattended on the school bus. School Bus Operations Handbook at 247. Further, the Handbook provides that in the event a driver must leave the bus, the driver must set the parking brake and remove the bus keys from the ignition. Id. A school bus driver is then directed to keep the keys in his or her possession. Id. Finally, the Handbook clearly states that the school bus driver is not to leave the approved bus route without permission. Id. Mr. Moore received extensive training in the School Board's policies concerning the safe operation of the school bus and the School Board's expectations for its school bus drivers found in the Handbook. Mr. Moore is sincere in his testimony that he loves his job, and forthright in his admission that he made a mistake in stopping for his morning breakfast while on his bus route.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board terminate Mr. Moore's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 14th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Kasha Brunson, and whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Maria Colina.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brunson has been employed by the School District since August 20, 1996. She is currently a bus attendant in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Brunson has had excellent performance evaluations. Ms. Colina has been employed by the School District since February 9, 2000. She is currently a bus operator in the School District's transportation department. During her tenure with the School District, Ms. Colina has had excellent performance evaluations. Both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPLAC) and the School Board. Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides: "Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause." The SPLAC agreement does not specifically define just cause, but Provision 7.10 of the SPLAC agreement provides that allegations of misconduct and poor job performance, which could result in suspension without pay or termination of employment, could be investigated, and a recommendation for discipline could be made to the superintendent as a result of the investigation. Provision 7.11 of the SPLAC agreement provides: [D]isciplinary action(s) taken against SPLAC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the provisions of 7.10 of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Colina was the bus operator, and Ms. Brunson was the bus attendant on Bus 134. The bus was assigned to pick up exceptional education students on its morning route to East Lee County High School (East Lee County). The bus has approximately six rows of seats. On December 7, 2010, the bus had two stops for East Lee County and picked up students C.E., a female, and T.T., a male, for delivery to East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. are tenth-grade students; however, they are mentally delayed and function between a fourth and sixth-grade level. In late October 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been advised to keep C.E. and T.T. separated. The students were not to speak to one another, and they were not to sit together. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were not told the reason why they were to keep the students separated, and they both assumed the students had been involved in an argument. On December 7, 2010, the bus arrived at East Lee County approximately 15 minutes prior to the bell ringing. Ms. Brunson, Ms. Colina, and the two students remained on the bus while waiting for the school to open. T.T. was seated in a seat at the rear of the bus across from Ms. Brunson. C.E. was in a seat at the front of the bus directly behind Ms. Colina, five rows in front of Ms. Brunson. T.T. asked Ms. Brunson for permission to change the radio station. She gave permission, and T.T. got up and walked to the front of the bus where he changed the station on the on-board radio. In order to change the radio station, he had to reach across Ms. Colina. Instead of returning to his assigned seat, T.T. sat down next to C.E. in her seat. Neither Ms. Brunson nor Ms. Colina saw T.T. sit next to C.E. At some point, Ms. Brunson observed T.T. in the seat with C.E. She felt that something inappropriate was happening, and she called T.T. back to his seat. Ms. Brunson reported the incident to Dale Maybin (Mr. Maybin), her supervisor for that day, as soon as C.E. and T.T. left the bus. Later in the morning, she also advised Shannan Pugh (Ms. Pugh), who was the paraprofessional who was supervising C.E. and T.T. at their work site. She told Ms. Pugh that, when T.T. stood up from C.E.'s seat, she saw C.E.'s head "pop up." In addition to the East Lee County delivery, Bus 134 was assigned to a route for students at Manatee Elementary School (Manatee). The Manatee route began after the completion of the East Lee County route. On the morning of December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina had been assigned two additional students to the Manatee route beginning on December 9, 2010. At the time of the incident involving T.T. and C.E., both Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina claim that they were doing paperwork related to the assignment of two new students. Bus drivers are given 15 minutes each morning and 15 minutes each afternoon to do a pre-trip inspection and to do paperwork. The paperwork involved in adding the two students to the bus route was minimal. The students' names would be added to the seating chart, and the students' names and I.D. numbers would be added to a Medicaid form. Once the bus arrived at Manatee where the students were to be delivered, the driver would receive additional information from the school and fill out a TR-1 form and get an emergency information card, which was to be placed in the bus. At the time of the incident on December 7, 2010, the only paperwork that needed to be done would be to add the names of the new students to the seating chart and to place the students' names and I.D. numbers on the Medicaid form. Although Ms. Colina had the responsibility of completing the paperwork, she and Ms. Brunson divided the paperwork. The longest time that it should have taken each person to do the paperwork was a couple of minutes. Respondents claim that they were unable to adequately supervise the students because of attending to paperwork is not credible. The amount of time that it would have taken to do the paperwork was minimal and should not have precluded Respondents from keeping an eye on the students. Additionally, Respondents should not have been doing their paperwork at the same time. Obviously, if both Respondents are doing paperwork at the same time, no one is watching the students. Because Respondents were doing paperwork does not relieve them of the responsibility of adequately supervising the students and keeping the students separated. The reason that C.E. and T.T. were separated stemmed from an incident in October 2010, when C.E. and T.T. had engaged in inappropriate activity during a work study program. C.E., T.T., and five other students were assigned to work off-campus at a grocery store. The students were supervised by two paraprofessionals from East Lee County. C.E. and T.T. left the area in the grocery store where they were assigned and went into the men's restroom together. C.E. admitted having sexual contact with T.T. while in the men's restroom. School officials changed the classroom and work study schedules of the two students to eliminate contact between the students. Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina were aware that C.E. and T.T. no longer went to the work site on the same days. No disciplinary actions were taken against the two paraprofessionals as a result of the incident at the grocery store. From late October 2010 to December 7, 2010, Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina kept C.E. and T.T. separated while on the bus, and the students did not engage in any inappropriate contact on the bus until the incident at issue. Respondents claim that they would have been more diligent in supervising the students if they had known that the reason that the students were being separated was for previous sexual misconduct. This reasoning for failure to adequately supervise is no excuse. Respondents should have adhered to their charge of keeping the students separated no matter the reason for the students being separated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that there is just cause to discipline Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina and suspending Ms. Brunson and Ms. Colina without pay from March 8, 2011, to January 1, 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent, Robert A. Evans', employment with Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (the "Board"), based on Evans' history of violations of employee policies, most recently and specifically, using his position to seek a personal relationship with the parent of a student. Evans is accused of violating the following Board policies: 4140-A (10)--Using position for personal gain/conflict of interest; 4140-A (21)--Conduct unbecoming a board employee that brings the district into disrepute or that disrupts the orderly process of the district; 3140-A (22)--Misconduct or Misconduct in Office; 4140-A (24)--Failure to comply with board policy, State law, or appropriate contractual agreement; and 4362--Anti-Harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the governing body responsible for hiring, firing and overseeing all employees in the Pinellas County School District. Specifically, the Board has responsibility for employees at the School, including educational support employees who provide services to the School. At all times relevant hereto, Evans was an educational support employee of the Board. Evans had worked as a school bus driver for the Board for 14 years. At the time of the incident, which is the primary focus of this administrative hearing, Evans was serving as a relief driver. That is, Evans would drive a bus route when the regular driver was sick or otherwise unavailable. Relief drivers are paid a higher hourly wage than regular drivers. On September 21, 2010, Evans had been assigned Route 879, relieving David Levering, the regular driver. The route included a number of stops before terminating at the School. The first stop on the route was at Anastasia Way and Cordova Way (the "Bus Stop"). When Evans arrived at the Bus Stop, a child, identified herein as "M.P.C.," got on the bus. M.P.C. had been escorted to the Bus Stop by her mother, A.E. Evans engaged in some sort of idle chat with A.E., including questions which she considered frivolous. For example, Evans asked A.E. if a nearby truck was for sale. A.E. thought Evans was acting oddly and had no further conversations with him. Evans did not drive Route 879 on the after-school run. On the following day, September 22, 2010, Evans was assigned to a different bus. That bus also terminated at the School. When Evans was at the school on September 22, 2010, he asked the assistant principal, Brennan, to do him a favor. Evans handed Brennan a small sealed envelope. He asked Brennan to give the note to an assistant on the bus for Route 879 and to ask the assistant to give it to a student, M.P.C. Brennan made some quick written comments on the envelope and then delivered it to the bus assistant as requested. Brennan did not know what the envelope contained. He believed it must have been something the student left on the bus. The note was dutifully transferred to the bus assistant and then to M.P.C., who gave the note to her mother, A.E. The note said in its entirety: 9-22/10 Hello I'm the bus driver. I picked up at your daughter's bus stop. We meet [sic] I would like to talk to you [telephone number] Mt. Vernon Elementary School Robert Anytime Evans contends that the purpose of the note was to make sure that M.P.C. got on the correct bus, at the correct bus stop, at the proper time. According to Evans, A.E. had complained to him on the morning of September 21, 2010, that the bus frequently arrived late or early at the Bus Stop. Evans says that he felt a duty to help M.P.C., notwithstanding the fact that he had never met her before and was only doing relief duty on September 21, 2010. According to the Transportation Department records, however, A.E. had only called a couple of times about the bus being late. Evans' explanation about the purpose of the note is not consistent with the facts and is not credible. When A.E. received the note, she was somewhat upset. felt as though Evans was coming on to her or making an improper proposition. She discussed the note with her boyfriend, but did not do anything about it initially. She just thought Evans was acting weird or inappropriate, because she had never asked him for assistance or discussed any problems with him. But she was not sufficiently upset to take further action at that time. On the following Monday, A.E. remembers the school bus coming toward the Bus Stop, but when the driver looked at her, he turned the bus down another street as if he were avoiding her. A.E. thought the driver, who she believed was Evans, was intentionally trying to punish her daughter because she (A.E.) did not respond to his advances. However, there was no evidence presented at final hearing that Evans was driving Route 879 on that Monday. According to the Board's manager of Transportation, Evans only drove Route 879 one time, September 21, 2010, so A.E. is obviously mistaken as to that fact. Nonetheless, A.E. decided to contact the School about Evans' actions, i.e., sending her a note and skipping her daughter's bus stop on Monday.2/ She called the School to complain; Brennan took the call. Brennan described A.E.'s attitude and demeanor during the phone call as extremely irate. It was at that time that Brennan discovered the content of the note he had helped deliver. Brennan was embarrassed at his inadvertent involvement in the matter. Brennan then called the county Transportation Office to report the incident. The Transportation Office's written report concerning the incident is fraught with errors and cannot be relied upon to make a finding of fact, but it is clear Evans' behavior was deemed inappropriate. In fact, Evans admitted under oath that it was against the rules for him to give either a note or his cell phone number to A.E. Based upon the nature of the infraction, the School contacted its Office of Professional Standards to inquire as to what sanction should be imposed on Evans for his behavior. It was decided that termination of employment was the proper discipline based on Evans' history of problems. Taken into consideration by the Board were the following disciplinary actions against Evans during the two years preceding the incident: November 14, 2008--warning for using school bus for personal use; December 5, 2008--conference summary for not using most direct path to return to compound; May 4, 2009--letter of caution for excessive absences; October 20, 2009--conference summary for tampering with the bus camera and failing to properly compound the bus after use; December 16, 2009--letter of warning for failing to operate a shuttle in a timely fashion; January 29, 2010--letter of reprimand for not arriving at bus stops timely and improper, dangerous discharge of students from the bus; May 26, 2010--letter imposing a 15-day suspension without pay based upon failing to drop a student off at the appropriate stop, then failing to follow proper procedures to correct the situation; and October 26, 2010--conference summary failing to properly and completely cover his assigned route. At the time the Board discussed and considered this latest transgression, Evans had not completed his 15-day suspension from May 2010. Evans had been allowed to serve the suspension over a period of time, rather than all at once, and he had not completed the suspension as of the December 7, 2010, Board meeting. He had not completed the suspension at the time of the incident at issue in this proceeding. Evans is aware of and has been trained as to the requirements set forth in the School Bus Driver Handbook. As part of the training relating to the handbook, drivers are frequently told they should not contact parents of children on their bus. There is a protocol for putting parents in contact with the School or the Board. If a parent has a complaint, the bus driver is supposed to give them a card that contains contact information on it. The card has a line for the driver to write his or her name and the bus route. The driver is not expected to have, and is prohibited from having, further conversation with the parent. Rather, the driver is supposed to fill out a card, give it to the parent, and direct the parent to contact the School or Board directly. Evans contends that he provided a card to A.E.; she says she never received a card from Evans or from any other bus driver. It seems incongruent that Evans would give A.E. a card and also a personal note. His testimony in that regard is not credible. The Board has enacted bylaws and policies addressing, inter alia, action which can be deemed harassing in nature. Policy 4362 includes a prohibition against "[u]nwelcome sexual propositions, invitations, solicitations, and flirtations." Policy 4140 prohibits an employee from using their position for personal gain. The same policy also establishes a penalty for an employee's failure to correct substandard performance of their duties. An employee may also be dismissed for conduct unbecoming a Board employee or which brings the school district into disrepute. Employees also face disciplinary action for misconduct or failing to comply with Board policies, state law, or a contractual agreement. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Board and the employees' union, employees go through a system of progressive discipline. Under this standard, discipline may, but need not, follow the following progression: Verbal or written counseling or warnings; Written reprimands; Suspension without pay; and Dismissal. Evans had received verbal and written counseling, as evidenced by the conference summaries. He had received written letters of reprimand for his performance. Evans had been suspended without pay for 15 days. Dismissal, i.e., termination of his employment contract, was the next step in the progressive discipline rules. Evans' testimony that he was simply trying to ensure the M.P.C. got on the correct bus is not credible. It does not make sense that a relief driver would immediately become concerned about and attempt to intervene in a bus stop issue for an unknown student. Further, his own admission that he knew it was wrong to contact a student's parent makes his position even less plausible. Evans did not have the ability to do anything for A.E. about the bus schedule; the bus schedule is beyond Evans' scope of authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, upholding the termination of Respondent, Robert Evans', employment for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Faye Norris, was employed by the School Board of Pinellas County as a bus driver in approximately September, 1978. While transporting children during the 1980-81 school year, Respondent frequently failed to completely stop at stop signs, drove at an excessive rate of speed for conditions, drove in excess of the applicable speed limit, and drove so fast turning corners that children almost slid off their seats and the bus left the road and drove across lawns. On a number of occasions, Respondent drove so fast that when she reached a bus stop, the bus did not stop until it had partially passed the bus stop. When loading children, Respondent frequently began to drive away from the stop before the children were seated, and on one occasion, a child was thrown to the rear of the bus. Respondent was "clocked" by grandparents of children on her bus, driving the bus at fifty-five miles per hour during rush-hour traffic in a thirty-five-mile per hour zone. Respondent regularly made fast starts and drove at an excessive rate of speed in the school yard at Norwood Elementary School and on one occasion almost ran over a teacher walking across the playground area. Frequently while Respondent was loading or unloading children she failed to activate the flashing lights on the bus and failed to extend the sidearm. On one occasion, Respondent stopped at a convenience store to make a telephone call. She left the door of the bus open and the engine running. The bus, which was full of children at the time had an automatic transmission. Some of the children on Respondent's bus were nervous about riding with her because of her speeding; and Lisa Hubbell, one of those children requested Respondent to drive more slowly because she was afraid. Parents of children riding the bus became frightened about the safety of their children. Mrs. Eatman contacted employees of the School Board on numerous occasions to complain about Respondent's driving habits, and Mrs. Robert Wallace contacted the School Board on two occasions. Jimmy M. Carlyle and Gail Edith Morrison principals at two of the schools to which Respondent transported children, received numerous telephone calls from parents complaining about Respondent's driving. Carlyle spoke to Respondent and cautioned her about speeding. Mitchell J. Kitchen, a route coordinator employed by the Petitioner, received telephone complaints about Respondent's excessive speed and discussed Respondent's driving with her on several occasions. Parris Lilly, Jr., a route supervisor, received complaints regarding Respondent's driving from principals, teachers, and citizens. He counseled Respondent on several different occasions. On March 27, 1981, Dr. Jerry C. Spears was driving through the residential neighborhood near his home when Respondent's bus came speeding toward him in his lane, and he had to drive off the street in order to avoid a head on collision. He began chasing Respondent's bus, which continued speeding and running stop signs. The bus was occupied by children. When Respondent stopped to load more children, Dr. Spears approached the bus to talk to the driver. Respondent slammed the door on his arm. Dr. Spears immediately contacted the Superintendent of Schools. Also on March 27, 1981, Respondent drove her morning route picking up children and transporting them to their schools without using the caution lights on the bus. The alternator was not working properly, and she was afraid that the bus was going to stall. Although she knows that school board policy requires that malfunctioning safety equipment be reported immediately and that the bus be driven no further, she failed to report that she was having a problem with the bus stalling until after she had driven a distance of approximately ten miles through downtown St. Petersburg during rush hour traffic. Bus drivers for the School Board of Pinellas County are required to activate the amber lights on the bus at least two hundred feet prior to the bus stop. Respondent activates those lights, if at all, fifteen feet before each stop. Walter M. Allison, III, Assistant Director of Transportation for the Petitioner, received complaints regarding Respondent's excessive speed. He told those persons complaining that their complaints needed to be reduced to writing and submitted to him. After receiving letters from several parents of children assigned to Respondent's bus and from Dr. Spears regarding his experience with Respondent, Allison reviewed Respondent's personnel file and scheduled a meeting at Bay Vista Elementary School on April 1, 1981, which meeting was attended by Respondent, a representative of Respondent's union, Mrs. Morrison, and Mr. Allison. The written complaints were reviewed with Respondent at that time. On April 2, 1981, the Superintendent of Schools wrote to Respondent advising her that she was suspended without pay effective April 2, 1981, because of her unsafe driving. He further advised her that he would seek School Board approval of that suspension and additionally would request that she be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Pinellas County. Pursuant to Respondent's request that she be afforded an opportunity to face her accusers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the School Board, a second meeting was held on April 7, 1981.
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Renaissance Charter School, Inc., and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, can be required by the St. Lucie County School Board ("School Board") to offer regular school busing to all eligible charter school students residing more than two miles from the charter school. Whether Petitioner, Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, breached its contract with the School Board by not providing transportation to students in accord with the parties' charter school contract and Florida Statutes. Whether School Board Policies 3.90 and 8.31 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the School Board has charter busing policies which amount to illegal, unadopted rules under chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Renaissance Charter School, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Renaissance Charter School, Inc., currently owns and operates two charter schools in St. Lucie County: Renaissance Charter School at Tradition and Renaissance Charter School at St. Lucie. The School Board is the "sponsor" of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition within the meaning of the charter school statute, section 1002.33. The School Board's Approval of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's Charter Application and Charter Contract On August 1, 2012, a charter school application was submitted to the School Board by Renaissance Charter School, Inc., on behalf of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. During the charter application and approval process, the School Board consistently contended that charter schools in St. Lucie County are required by law to offer regular school busing to all eligible students residing more than two miles from their charter school.1/ On September 17, 2012, the School Board's Charter School Evaluation Team recommended approval of the Renaissance Charter School at Tradition charter school application, subject to the charter school providing "a viable transportation plan that meets statutory requirements once a school site has been finalized." On May 14, 2013, the School Board, at a regular board meeting, unanimously approved its charter contract with Renaissance Charter School, Inc., for Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. The Renaissance Charter School at Tradition charter contract became effective upon approval by the School Board at its May 14, 2013, meeting. The term of the charter contract is five years, commencing on the first day of the 2013-2014 school year, and ending on June 30, 2018. The School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition have a valid and binding charter school contract that is still in full force and effect. Applicable Transportation Provisions of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's Charter Contract Section 6 of the charter contract between the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, which governs student transportation, provides as follows: SECTION 6: TRANSPORTATION Cooperation Between Sponsor and School: The School shall provide transportation to the School's students consistent with the requirements of Part I.E. of Chapter 1006, and Section 1012.45, F.S. The School may contract with the Sponsor to provide transportation service. Reasonable Distance: Transportation will not be a barrier to equal access for all students residing within the District, and the School shall provide transportation to all students residing in the District subject to the limitations in this Section 6.B. Students residing within two miles of the school will be expected to furnish their own transportation, except that certain students, as specified in Section 1006.21, F.S., for example students with disabilities and elementary grade students who are subject to specified hazardous walking conditions, must be provided transportation, regardless of the distance from the school. For students who are geographically isolated, or who are unable to be transported on a school bus due to disabilities, the School will offer reimbursement to eligible parents residing within the District. This parental reimbursement shall be equivalent to the monies provided by the Sponsor to the School for transportation of the student. At the time of student application for enrollment, the School shall be responsible for informing parents of the transportation options available, including the reimbursement amount available in lieu of provided transportation to qualifying students. Compliance with Safety Requirements: The School shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable transportation safety requirements. Unless it contracts with the Sponsor for the provision of student transportation, the School is required to ensure that each school bus transporting the School's students meets applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and other specifications. The School agrees to monitor the status of the commercial drivers' licenses of each school bus driver employed or hired by the School (hereafter "School Bus Drivers") unless it contracts with Sponsor to provide such services. The School will provide the Sponsor, via the Charter Schools Support Department, an updated list each quarter of all School Bus Drivers providing commercial driver's license numbers, current license status and license expiration dates. Fees: The School may not charge a fee for transportation to which the student is entitled pursuant to state law. The School shall reimburse parents for parent-provided transportation costs if the student is legally entitled to transportation. Private Transportation Agreement: In the event the School will be contracting with a third party to provide transportation to its students, the School shall provide a copy of the transportation contract to the Sponsor at least sixty (60) days prior to the initial day of classes. Reimbursement for School Funded Transportation: The rate of reimbursement to the School by the Sponsor for transportation will be equivalent to the reimbursement rate provided by the State of Florida for all eligible transported students. Section 1 B) 4) of the charter contract further provides: 4) Statutory Requirements: The Parties will comply with Section 1002.33, F.S., and any regulations adopted by the State Board of Education or other state agency, or amendments thereto, pertaining to charter schools, and all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to civil rights and student health, safety and welfare. If any conflict exists between the provisions of the approved application or this Charter and any specific provision of law, then the provisions of the law shall prevail. The School shall be bound by amendments to applicable statutes, rules, and regulation, as any such amendments take effect. Unless specifically incorporated herein, the policies of the Sponsor do not apply to the School. However, if the School is statutorily required to have a policy and does not, the Sponsor's policy shall be deemed to apply. Students of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition and the School's Transportation Policy For a student to attend Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, their parents must apply during an open enrollment period, and a lottery system is used to determine who may attend. Parents whose child is selected through the lottery to attend Renaissance Charter School at Tradition are given a certain number of days to accept or decline the seat. Then the process starts over again until all seats are filled or there are no other students on the list. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition opened for the 2013-2014 school year as a K-6 school with 695 enrolled students. Projected enrollment for the 2013-2014 school year was 661 students. However, before the 2013-2014 school year began, projected enrollment had increased to 745 students. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition opened for the 2014-2015 school year as a K-7 school with 890 enrolled students and an enrollment cap of 945 students. For the 2015-2016 school year, Renaissance Charter School at Tradition plans to open as a K-8 school with projected enrollment of 1,075 students. For the 2016-2017 school year, Renaissance Charter School at Tradition plans to open as a K-8 school at maximum capacity of 1,145 enrolled students. The only "A" graded schools in St. Lucie County, Florida, for the 2013-2014 school year were Renaissance Charter School at Tradition and Renaissance Charter School at St. Lucie. There is a waiting list for grades K-3 at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition recognize that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition provides their children with a unique educational opportunity. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition recognize that the decision to enroll their children at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition is a personal choice and not a privilege. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition are active partners in the education of their children. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition does not provide regular school busing to its students who reside more than two miles from the charter school. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition re-evaluates its transportation policies on a yearly basis. Parents of students are informed that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition does not offer regular school busing in informational meetings before they apply for their child to attend the school. Parents of students enrolled at Renaissance Charter School at Tradition sign a "Parent Obligation Form," contractually obligating themselves "[t]o provide transportation to and from the school for my child." Parents are required to sign the "Parent Obligation Form" every year as part of the enrollment process. The transportation policy of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, which is given to all parents upon enrollment, apprises parents that the school does not offer regular school busing to students, but that the school agrees to provide "transportation or an equivalent reimbursement" to students in certain legally-defined circumstances. The transportation policy of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition provides as follows: Student Transportation Policy Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's [sic], is and always has been, fully committed to ensuring that transportation will not be a barrier to equal access for all students residing within the District. To date, there are more students attending our newly-opened charter school than was projected for our first year. Although our school does not presently offer busing as a means of school transportation, we are in the process of helping put together parent carpools for those parents who want their children to share rides to and from school. Moreover, transportation, or an equivalent reimbursement, will be provided to any student who falls under any of the following categories [taken from Florida State Statute 1006.21]: Any student in grades K-8 who does not otherwise have access to an adequate educational facility or opportunity. Any student in grades K-6 who are subjected to a hazardous walking condition as defined in s. 1006.23 while en route to or from school. Any student in grades K-8 who have a documented transportation need in their IEP. Any student in grades K-8 who are pregnant, student parents, and/or the children of these students if a teenage parent program is presented at the school. If you feel your child falls within one of the categories listed above, please notify the front office and we will work with you on a case-by-case basis. The School Board rejected the transportation policy of Renaissance Charter School at Tradition because it does not provide for the regular school busing of all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's failure to provide regular bus transportation to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school does not constitute a barrier to equal access to all students. At the hearing, no credible and persuasive evidence was presented that any students lack equal access to an adequate educational facility or opportunity. No evidence was presented that any students are subject to hazardous walking conditions while en route to or from the charter school. There is one student who enrolled on January 20, 2015, who has a transportation need documented in their individual education plan, but the child's parent has chosen to provide transportation. No evidence was presented of any students who are pregnant or who have given birth to any children. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition opens at 6:00 a.m. and closes at 6:00 p.m. There are before-and-after- care private buses that take students off-site to other organizations, such as to karate and the Boys and Girls Clubs. Renaissance Charter School at Tradition also encourages parents' use of carpooling their children to and from school. The School Board's position is that carpooling is not a viable transportation option for the charter school. At Renaissance Charter School at Tradition, one parent has decided to run a private busing service, but no other parents have chosen to use the services of that private bus.2/ The Charter Contract and Transportation Policy Do Not Require Petitioners to Transport by Regular School Bus All Students Residing More Than Two Miles From the Charter School The parties' dispute centers on whether the School Board can require Renaissance Charter School at Tradition to offer regular school bus transportation, to and from the school, for all students residing more than two miles from the school. The interests of Petitioners are directly and substantially affected by the School Board's attempt to require that Petitioners transport by regular school bus all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. The parties unsuccessfully mediated their dispute before the Florida Department of Education. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition has not breached its charter contract with the School Board by not providing regular school busing to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. The charter school contract between the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition does not require Renaissance Charter School at Tradition to provide regular school busing to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school.3/ Renaissance Charter School at Tradition's transportation policy is consistent with its charter contract with the School Board. The School Board's Inequitable Treatment of Charter Schools The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the School Board's treatment of Petitioners is inequitable. The School Board has a "no transportation zone," which geographically encompasses approximately one-third of the county. Students of traditional public schools residing in the "no transportation zone" are not provided regular school bus transportation to and from school. The School Board also has a "limited transportation zone." Students of traditional public schools residing in the "limited transportation zone" are provided regular school bus transportation, but only if they attend a school located within the "limited transportation zone." The "no transportation zone" and "limited transportation zone" encompass approximately one-half of St. Lucie County. At the hearing, the School Board conceded that it has different policies for the transportation of traditional public school students and students at magnet schools and attractor schools. The School Board encourages the use of carpools for students of traditional public schools. The School Board's Alleged Unadopted Policy The School Board, in paragraph 20 of its counter- petition filed in Case No. 14-3267, specifically states: "The School District's adopted policy is that students who live more than two miles from their assigned school shall be provided school bus transportation." (emphasis added). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the School Board interprets Florida law and its adopted School Board Policies 3.90 and 8.31 to require that all existing and future charter schools within the county provide regular school bus transportation for all students residing more than two miles from the charter school. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the School Board does not have an unadopted policy that all charter schools within the county must provide regular school busing to all students residing more than two miles from their charter school. The School Board's Adopted Policies The School Board has two adopted policies, School Board Policy 3.90 (dealing with charter schools) and School Board Policy 8.31 (dealing with student transportation). The interests of Petitioner are directly and substantially affected by these policies.4/ Both School Board Policies 3.90 and 8.31 were properly noticed pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Neither School Board Policy 3.90 nor 8.31 is specifically incorporated into the charter agreement between the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. Moreover, according to the School Board, School Board Policy 8.31 applies only in the absence of a viable charter school transportation policy. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to demonstrate that the School Board and Renaissance Charter School at Tradition mutually agreed that School Board Policy 3.90, or 8.31, apply to the charter school.
