The Issue The issue is whether the Lee County School Board may terminate Respondent's employment as a school bus driver 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 matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. In January 2003, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school bus driver. Respondent had been in that position since April 2000. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County and the School Board (hereafter "SPALC Agreement"). On January 27, 2003, Respondent's supervisor, Joe Howard, received a note from Respondent which stated that Respondent was "going through a lot of problems (personal)" and that he "can't work today." The note was delivered to Mr. Howard's office by one of Respondent's relatives. The note did not expressly request leave and it stated that Respondent "will give [Mr. Howard] more details when [he] come[s] back to work." Respondent never contacted Mr. Howard to explain his absence, nor did Respondent report for work at any point after January 27, 2003. Mr. Howard subsequently learned that Respondent had not returned to work because he was in jail. Respondent never filled out the School Board's leave request form, nor did he get approval for his leave on January 27, 2003, or thereafter. School Board policy specifically requires requests for leave to be made and approved in advance of the period of leave. The policy has an exception for "sickness or other emergencies," but that exception is not implicated in this case. On January 29, 2003, Respondent was arrested by the Lee County Sheriff's office after he was involved in a confrontation with his girlfriend on the Mid Point bridge in Lee County. Respondent was charged with four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of aggravated battery, and one count of false imprisonment. Each of those offenses is a third-degree felony. Respondent was taken to jail after his arrest. He remained in jail through March 5, 2003. All of the charges against Respondent except the false imprisonment and one count of aggravated assault were subsequently "dropped." Respondent is currently awaiting trial on the remaining charges. Upon learning of Respondent's arrest and the nature of the allegations against him, Mr. Howard had serious concerns regarding Respondent's ability to work as a bus driver. Mr. Howard was particularly concerned that parents would be uncomfortable with Respondent transporting their children in light of Respondent's alleged failure to follow the law. Mr. Howard considers compliance with the law to be a paramount duty of a bus driver. In accordance with School Board policy and the SPALC Agreement, the School Board investigated the circumstances surrounding Respondent's absence and arrest, as well as other unrelated allegations of misconduct by Respondent. The findings of the investigation were discussed at a duly-noticed pre-determination conference held on March 6, 2003. The purpose of the pre-determination conference is to give the employee an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him or her. Respondent attended the pre-determination conference and spoke on his own behalf. Respondent confirmed that he was arrested on January 29, 2003, and that he was in jail until March 5, 2003. Respondent also provided his version of the events surrounding his arrest. On March 24, 2003, the Superintendent informed Respondent that he was suspended from his position based upon the findings of the investigation and the pre-determination conference. The suspension was retroactive to March 6, 2003, which was the first day that Respondent could have reported to work after his release from jail. Also on March 24, 2003, the School Board's director of human resources informed Respondent that there was probable cause to discipline him for his conduct and that she was recommending that Respondent be terminated from his position. Thereafter, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing. Respondent's employment contract with the School Board expired on May 29, 2003. His contract was not renewed for the 2003-04 school year as a result of a number of performance deficiencies cited in Respondent's annual assessment. Those performance deficiencies were not directly related to Respondent's arrest. Notice of this proceeding was provided to Respondent at the address he gave to the School Board at the pre- determination conference. Respondent received certified mail from the School Board at that address during the course of this proceeding. Respondent failed to appear at the final hearing despite having been given due notice of its date, time, and location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board issue a final order that terminates Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner employed Respondent as a school bus driver. Respondent worked in that capacity for approximately 15 years. Respondent received 40 hours of initial training and eight hours of update training each year. The training included safety procedures. One of the safety procedures was a requirement for the bus driver and/or bus aide to walk from the back to the front of the bus at the completion of each run. During the walk, the driver and/or aide were supposed to observe each seat and the floor to ensure that no children were left on the bus. Leaving a child unsupervised on a bus, intentionally or through omission, is a very serious matter. Such misconduct by a bus driver creates an unacceptable risk of harm to a child. In February 2005, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay for ten days. Petitioner based the suspension on Respondent's failure to follow safety procedures to ensure that a child was not left unattended on a bus. In May 2008, Respondent was one of two school bus operators assigned to deliver parents and children to an adult education and parenting program known as Family Resource Activity Model for Early Education (FRAME). The program was located at the McMillian Learning Center in Pensacola, Florida. On April 14, 2008, Respondent drove a bus, including adults and children to the learning center. Upon arrival, Respondent hurried to the restroom without first inspecting the bus to insure that no children remained on the bus. After exiting the bus and utilizing the restroom inside a building, Respondent remained in a sitting area for several more minutes. While Respondent and other bus drivers discussed future school bus operations, a four-year-old child was sleeping unattended on Respondent's bus. The child's parent arrived at the school by another means of transportation. The parent immediately began to look for the young child. The parent inquired but received no response about the location of the child from Respondent. The parent continued her search in the school building. Next, Respondent decided to accompany another school bus driver for an additional run. Respondent requested Carolyn Scott, a bus aide, to go to Respondent's bus and retrieve her purse so that she could take it with her. Pursuant to Respondent's request, Ms. Scott boarded Respondent's bus and found the child asleep on the bus. Ms. Scott awakened and removed the child from the bus. The child was then placed in the proper classroom. Linda Harris, FRAME's program director, learned about the incident and reported the facts to Petitioner's Transportation Department. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent left the child on the bus and failed to perform the required safety check before or after she used the restroom. Respondent was not aware the child was sleeping behind her seat when she left the bus. Respondent's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Lula Williams 1604 West Scott Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School District 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent engaged in violence in the workplace, breached the responsibilities and duties of an employee, and imposed physical discipline in violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07; and, if so, whether Petitioner should suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay from her position as a school bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for operating public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the District), and disciplining employees within the District when necessary. Petitioner employs Respondent as a school bus driver within the District subject to rules and regulations of the School Board promulgated pursuant to Section 1012.23, Florida Statutes (2002); and subject to the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (the Contract). Petitioner has employed Respondent as a school bus driver within the District for approximately ten years. Petitioner trains school bus drivers, including Respondent, in procedures to follow when students become disruptive or unruly while traveling in a school bus. Petitioner directs drivers to stop the school bus on the side of the road until the students calm down. If necessary, the driver must then radio or telephone a supervisor or the police for further assistance. On October 8, 2002, Respondent drove a school bus for the purpose of taking students home following an after school activity at Coral Reef Senior High School. Respondent was substituting for the regular bus driver. It was dark, and Respondent was unfamiliar with the bus route. Respondent drove the school bus in a manner that endangered the physical safety of the students in the bus. Respondent instructed the students to walk to the front of the bus when their stop was near and to tell Respondent where to stop the bus. Respondent repeatedly applied the brakes of the bus with sufficient force that the students, who stood in the aisle to give Respondent instructions, were thrown into the seats or forward in the aisle. Respondent engaged in other behavior that endangered the physical safety of the students. Respondent's driving pattern of abrupt stops continued until only a few students remained on the bus. One student, identified in the record as C.C., became angry when Respondent missed the student's stop. When C.C. was stepping down to get off the bus, C.C. realized she had dropped her purse, asked Respondent to turn on the light, and Respondent complied. C.C. walked back up the steps of the bus to retrieve her purse and called Respondent a "bitch." Respondent responded by saying, "You a bitch." Respondent violated relevant procedures for defusing disruptive situations, endangered students riding on the bus, and threatened students. Contemporaneously with the exchange between Respondent and C.C., Respondent stopped the bus in the middle of the road, rather than the side of the road and turned off the engine. Respondent did not attempt to defuse the situation and did not contact a supervisor or the police. Rather, Respondent unbuckled her seat belt, approached C.C., and participated in a physical altercation with C.C. Respondent's conduct exposed other students in the school bus to physical harm. The other students came forward to separate Respondent and C.C. A student identified in the record as Z.G. tried to grab Respondent from behind, and female students tried to stop C.C. Respondent threw her walkie-talkie at C.C., but hit Z.G. No student other than C.C. hit Respondent. Respondent threatened the students riding on the school bus at the time of the altercation with C.C. Respondent stated that she was going to "kill" the students and that she had a son who was going to "bury" them. Respondent sat down in the driver's seat and drove the school bus to the Cutler Ridge Police Station. Respondent told police that the students on the bus attacked her. At the police station, Respondent did not telephone the supervisor on duty for the District. Rather, Respondent telephoned her daughter and Ms. Shirley Morris, a coworker and friend (Morris). Morris paged Aned Lamboglia (Lamboglia), the supervisor on duty. Lamboglia spoke to Respondent by telephone. Lamboglia was surprised at the assertion that students on the school bus attacked Respondent because incidents involving a student attacking a bus driver are "extremely rare." A suspension without pay for 30 days is reasonable under the circumstances. Although violence in the workplace is an egregious offense that is aggravated because it involves students, Respondent has no prior history of discipline. There is no pattern of violent behavior. The proposed penalty is consistent with the progressive discipline agreed to in the Contract. Other than this incident, Respondent has an exemplary work history, and Petitioner does not wish to lose Respondent as an employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and suspending Respondent from her employment for 30 days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Mary Jill Hanson, Esquire Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. 105 South Narcissus Avenue, Suite 510 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Melinda L. McNichols, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394
The Issue Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Christopher O'Brien and suspend him for five days without pay. Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Angelo DiPaolo and suspend him for three days without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Christopher O'Brien was employed by Petitioner Hernando County School Board as a school bus driver. Mr. O'Brien was first hired by Petitioner as a school bus driver in 2001. Prior to the events of this case, he had never been disciplined by his employer, and he had received a number of commendations. At all times material, Angelo DiPaolo was employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant. Mr. DiPaolo was first employed and trained by Petitioner as a school bus driver for about one year, but he had been employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant for the last six years preceding the incident in this case. Respondents are members of the Hernando United School Workers Union (HUSW). For the 2007-2008, school year, both men were assigned by the School Board's Transportation Department to Bus 473, Route 22. During that school year, the bus carried between 50 and 60 children, ages kindergarten through eighth grade, to and from J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Student A.R. was one of these students. On October 5, 2007, A.R. was a three-year-old, female, pre-kindergarten, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student. She was a special needs child, whose 2007-2008, Individualized Education Plan (IEP) called for her to have adult supervision while riding the bus. The School Board had implemented A.R.'s IEP for the 2007-2008, school year by placing Mr. DiPaolo on Mr. O'Brien's bus. Steve Daniels, Petitioner's ESE Driver Coordinator Specialist, provided Mr. DiPaolo with written confirmation of his assignment, which included information on A.R.'s grade level, bus stop, and need for a special seat restraint. Mr. DiPaolo first met A.R. at the beginning of the 2007-2008, school year. Mr. DiPaolo's assigned first and primary responsibility was the safety of A.R., which included buckling her into her child safety seat, but his second and subordinate responsibility was to maintain order on the bus and manage the safety of the other 50-60 children. Mr. O'Brien had met A.R. during the second semester of the 2006-2007, school year, when she was initially placed on his school bus route. During that school year, A.R. had ridden the bus driven by Mr. O'Brien without having a school bus attendant specifically devoted to her safety and exceptionalities. During that school year, Mr. O'Brien had been instrumental in getting a particular type of safety seat for A.R. to ride in, due to her small size. This type of seat is called "a C. E. White" or "CEW" child's safety seat, and has an integrated five-point harness. During the 2006-2007, school year, Mr. O'Brien's bus had no bus attendant. Therefore, during that period of time, he had ultimate responsibility for all the children on his bus, including A.R. During the 2006-2007, school year, A.R. was sometimes buckled into her bus safety seat by older siblings who rode the same bus, but Mr. O'Brien had a good rapport with A.R. and often also helped buckle her into her seat. To do so, he had to leave the bus driver's compartment of the bus. During the 2007-2008, school year, A.R. and one sister, R.R., who was then approximately nine years old, continued to ride Mr. O'Brien's bus. Mr. O'Brien was advised at the start of the 2007-2008, school year that A.R. would be riding with the adult supervision of Mr. DiPaolo. Mr. O'Brien was not made privy to the reasons why the decision had been made to require a bus attendant specifically for A.R., but he understood he was supposed to comply with this requirement, regardless of the reason. There also was testimony that any three-year-old attending kindergarten with a special bus attendant would be an ESE student. In assessing the relative credibility and weighing the testimony of all the witnesses, as well as hearing the comments made by R.R. on the videotape of the October 5, 2007, incident, it is found that A.R. was not a usually compliant and accepting bus passenger, but was frequently what any parent would recognize as difficult or oppositional. (See Finding of Fact 23.) Indeed, during the 2007-2008, school year prior to October 5, 2007, Mr. DiPaolo had twice sought direction from Mr. Daniels, who had told him to do the best he could with A.R., but if Mr. DiPaolo's "best" did not work out, something else might have to be done about A.R. A.R.'s father usually brought her to the bus stop. On the morning of October 5, 2007, a neighbor brought the two siblings to the bus stop. A.R. was already upset when boarding began. On October 5, 2007, A.R. did not want to get on the bus. Mr. DiPaolo had to go down to the first step of the bus to get A.R. from the neighbor who was supervising the sisters at the bus stop. Once A.R. made it to the top step of the bus entrance, she still did not want to move. Mr. DiPaolo had to lift her up and place her in her C.E. White seat, which was strapped-into the window-side of the first row seat, immediately inside the door on the side of the bus opposite the driver's side. Once there, A.R. deliberately slumped off the car seat onto the floor of the bus. When lifted up again, A.R. repeated the behavior. This "battle of wills" between the three-year-old and the bus attendant continued for a little while. Fairly quickly, however, Mr. DiPaolo retired from the field of battle to speak to some students in the back of the bus. At this point, A.R. was either sliding herself onto the floor or was on the floor between the first row of seats and the stairwell barricade. Despite some testimony to the effect that the older students in the back of the bus were rowdy and needed to be settled down, the video tape does not corroborate that "take" on the chain of events. While it might have been good strategy for Mr. DiPaolo to let A.R. cool off a little before again trying to buckle her into her seat, there does not appear to have been any pressing reason for Mr. DiPaolo to absent himself from her vicinity to address issues in the back of the bus. Moreover, A.R. was his first and prime responsibility, and he abandoned that responsibility by saying to A.R.'s sister, R.R., who was still standing and not in her own seat, that she should try to get A.R. buckled in, and he did not alert Mr. O'Brien that A.R. was not yet buckled-in. Mr. DiPaolo's superior, Mr. Daniels, would have sanctioned Mr. DiPaolo's enlisting the aid of the older sibling if Mr. DiPaolo also had not simply abandoned the situation and walked to the back of the bus. Mr. DiPaolo also could have, and did not, attempt to enlist the aid of the adult neighbor who had delivered A.R. to the bus stop, or he could have returned A.R. back to that adult neighbor and suggested the neighbor take A.R. to school separately, both of which were options his superiors testified they would have sanctioned. He could also have requested that Mr. O'Brien radio the dispatcher for help. He chose none of these options. As Mr. DiPaolo gave instructions to A.R.'s sister and walked to the back of the bus, Mr. O'Brien, not realizing that A.R. was not secured into her seat, pulled the bus away from the stop. Although Mr. O'Brien testified to several reasons that he believed A.R. was secured in her seat before he pulled the bus away from its stop, Mr. DiPaolo clearly had not orally advised him that she was buckled-in, and Mr. O'Brien did not, in fact, make sure that A.R. was secure before he pulled the bus into four-lane traffic. Moreover, the sister, R.R., was up and down while all this was going on. She was not always in her seat as the bus was moving, either. R.R. was not able to secure A.R. in her seat, so she approached the driver's compartment and stated to Mr. O'Brien that they were going to have to do things "the hard way." R.R.'s choice of words suggests that R.R. and Mr. O'Brien had previously had to buckle A.R. into her car seat by sheer force. Approximately 25 seconds after he started the bus, during which time the bus entered the flow of four lanes of traffic and proceeded through an intersection, Mr. O'Brien pulled the bus over to the side of the road and stopped. During the whole of this period, A.R. was not in her seat or buckled- in. When Mr. O'Brien pulled over, he put on the emergency brake and put the transmission in neutral. He intentionally left the bus engine running, because the doors on that type of bus are controlled by air pressure. Once the engine is turned off, the doors will open with just the touch of a hand from either inside or outside the door. For safety reasons, he wanted the door to remain secure. Under the circumstances, pulling over the bus was probably a wise move, but Mr. O'Brien went further. He could have summoned Mr. DiPaolo to come back and do his job as A.R.'s bus attendant, and he could have called dispatch to alert the administration to a problem requiring their help, but instead, Mr. O'Brien left the driver's compartment to check on A.R. When Mr. O'Brien reached her, A.R. was not in her seat. He lifted her up from the floor of the bus and attempted to buckle her into her seat. At first, Mr. O'Brien was not successful getting A.R. into her seat and asked her if she knew she was about to get "a spanking." Mr. O'Brien admitted to threatening to spank A.R. to "snap her out of it," and to emphasize the importance of complying with his demands, even though he knew that "corporal punishment" was against Petitioner's policies. His voice was firm in making the statement and more matter-of-fact than threatening. However, his threat was loud enough to be heard over the general commotion on the bus, the idling engine, and the sound of traffic. R.R. and at least a few nearby children must have heard the threat. When A.R. continued to physically resist Mr. O'Brien's efforts to get her into her seat, he administered a single, swift slap to her right buttocks/thigh area. A.R. did not cry out specifically at that point, although later she began to cry. After spanking A.R., Mr. O'Brien was able, unassisted, to wrestle her into her seat and buckle her in. At some point in Mr. O'Brien's struggle, Mr. DiPaolo returned and stood in the aisle, level with the back of A.R.'s seat, observing Mr. O'Brien interacting with A.R. and A.R. crying. The "driver's compartment" on Mr. O'Brien's bus does not show up well in the video and there was no testimony concerning how it is configured. However, it does not appear to be separated from the students' seats by a door or partition. The diagrams in the Operations Handbook show clear access to the driver's seat and controls from the student seats on the driver's side immediately behind the driver's seat, if the driver is not in his seat, regardless of whether anyone is blocking the aisle. During the entire period of time Mr. O'Brien was dealing with A.R., he had his back turned towards the driver's seat and controls, which he had left unattended. During this entire period of time, the bus engine continued running and the doors remained closed. However, Mr. O'Brien's bus has just a knob for an emergency brake and anyone could have hit the knob so that the bus would begin rolling forward. After securing A.R. and being sure R.R. also was safely seated, Mr. O'Brien returned to the driver's compartment and drove the bus to school. A.R.'s screaming, crying, and fussing seems to have escalated after Mr. O'Brien resumed the driver's seat, when Mr. DiPaolo said something to A.R. about his not being willing to sit with her. However, Mr. DiPaolo eventually sat next to A.R. and interacted with A.R. to keep her amused, and apparently happy, until the bus stopped again and the passengers debarked at J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Mr. O'Brien described the incident to A.R.'s classroom teacher when he delivered A.R. into her care at the school on October 5, 2007. He did not report it to Petitioner's Transportation Department, because it was, in his mind, a minor bit of misbehavior by a student. Mr. DiPaolo also made no report. The undersigned is not persuaded that either Mr. O'Brien or Mr. DiPaolo tried to keep the incident secret. One of Petitioner's own training manuals provides: Minor incidents of misbehavior such as getting out of the seat, standing, or speaking loudly are usually better handled on the bus. If every incident of misbehavior is reported to the principal, the operator will lose credibility. However, on the following Monday morning, A.R.'s mother boarded Mr. O'Brien's bus and made a scene, accusing Mr. O'Brien of spanking A.R. on her bottom. The mother then proceeded to Petitioner's administrative offices, where she lodged a complaint, and finally went on to the Sheriff's Office to do the same. Ultimately, because they are required to do so when there is an accusation of corporal punishment, Petitioner's administration notified the Department of Children and Family Services of the mother's allegations. After receiving the complaint, Linda Smith, Petitioner's Director of Transportation, requested a copy of the October 5, 2007, surveillance video from the front of Bus 473. That surveillance film was admitted in evidence and has been heavily relied-upon in this Recommended Order. The surveillance film from the back of the bus was not offered or admitted. Ms. Smith, and Ms. Rucell Nesmith, Petitioner's Operator Trainer/Safety Coordinator for Transportation, have each been involved in school bus transportation for over 30 years and both have served as drivers and as transportation administrators. They testified that Mr. O'Brien's conduct on October 5, 2007, violated Petitioner's policy on two basic levels: he left the driver's compartment while the bus was still running and still loaded with students, and he administered corporal punishment to a student. While bus attendants and drivers have some discretion in handling disruptive students or students like A.R., who are not following directions, they are not supposed to permit, or cause, a bus to leave a stop until every student is properly secured, and they are forbidden to use corporal punishment. Bus drivers/operators receive training, including training on Petitioner's Operations Handbook as well as training on the State-approved driver curriculum. Mr. O'Brien was certified as having completed the bus driver training on July 20, 2001. Mr. O'Brien attended annual in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In-service trainings include, among other things, any updates to the Operations Handbook. General statements were also made during in-service trainings about not touching students. Mr. DiPaolo received his initial training as a bus driver from Ms. Nesmith and a copy of the Operations Handbook in 2001, when he first was hired by Petitioner. Mr. DiPaolo, and all bus attendants, receive initial training as bus attendants, including a review of Petitioner's Operations Handbook. Mr. DiPaolo also received in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In-service training included any updates to the Operations Handbook. Ms. Smith recommended discipline for Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo. She recommended a five-day suspension for Mr. O'Brien and a three-day suspension for Mr. DiPaolo. Petitioner scheduled a pre-disciplinary meeting concerning the incident for October 17, 2007. The meeting was postponed because Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo had obtained legal counsel. The meeting was eventually rescheduled for November 2007. Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo attended that meeting with their respective legal counsel, and it resulted in the November 7, 2007, charges addressed below and in the Conclusions of Law. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, Petitioner's Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. O'Brien, reprimanding him and issuing a five-day suspension without pay for leaving the driver's compartment; leaving the bus running while attending to A.R.; orally threatening to spank a student while attempting to put her into her seat; swatting the student on her posterior; and failing to immediately report to the Transportation Department the incident as a student safety issue. Mr. O'Brien was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (10)- On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board; Policy 6.301, Ethics: Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety; and (3) (e) not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and provisions in Petitioner's 2007 Staff Handbook prohibiting touching students except to protect their health, safety and/or welfare. Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, the Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. DiPaolo, reprimanding him and issuing a three-day suspension without pay, for failing to place a student assigned specifically to him for supervision and assistance in her seat; walking to the back of the bus while the bus driver had to secure the student in her seat; and failing to immediately report the incident to the Transportation Department as a student safety issue. Mr. DiPaolo was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group II, Section (13), Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties; Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (4), Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work; and Policy 6.301: Ethics, Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Again, Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 37, states, in pertinent part: Bus Aides 5. Drivers are to remain in the driver's compartment. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 59-Y, states, in pertinent part: Responsibilities of a School Bus Aide To load and unload students and assist driver as needed. * * * 3. To ensure that all students are secured and when appropriate, secure restraining devices, i.e. seat belts, safety vest, infant seats, and toddler seats. * * * 6. To recognize individual student capabilities and exceptionalities while maintaining order on the bus and administer to their individual needs as required. At page 59-D, the Operations Handbook provides, in pertinent part: Operating Procedure No. 27, Responsibilities of the School Bus Driver Related to Board of Education Rules 6A-3 25. To report immediately to the director or supervisor of transportation, school principal or other designated officials: a. Misconduct on the part of any student while on bus or under the driver's immediate supervision, The Department of Education Bureau of Professional Practices Services' handout, provided during training of bus drivers, provides, in pertinent part: INTERACTION WITH STUDENTS: Keep hands and other parts of your body to yourself. TIPS FOR STAFF WITH AGGRESSIVE STUDENTS: DON'TS: Do not physically handle the student. Do not react aggressively in return. * * * 5. Do not create punitive consequences to "get even" with the student. Department of Education Recommendation: Discipline The bus driver has no authority to slap, spank or abuse any child. By School Board policy, Petitioner has made the standards for educators applicable to even its non-educational personnel, such as bus attendants and bus drivers. Policy 6.301 concerns employee ethics and provides in pertinent part: (2) All employees shall familiarize themselves with the 'Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida,' located in the State Board of Education Rules. All employees shall abide by the Code at all times and shall be held to the standards of the Code in all matters related to their employment with the Hernando County School Board. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, which is provided to Petitioner's employees with their copy of Petitioner's Policy 6.301, provides in pertinent part: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * e. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner's Policy 6.301 (3), reads: The School Board of Hernando County supports strong internal control in its procedures and practices. All incidents of suspected improprieties should be reported using the Board approved Compliant [sic] Policy. Petitioner's 2007-2008 Staff Handbook provides, in pertinent part: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety, and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. School Board Policy 6.37 -- Group (II) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP II OFFENSES (13) Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. School Board Policy 6.37 - Group (III) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP III OFFENSES (4) Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work. (10) On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board. The parties stipulated that this case does not present a situation of progressive discipline, and accordingly, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to quote or discuss the levels of discipline permissible under Groups II and III of Policy 6.37 or Policy 6.38. It further appears that combinations of the penalties of written reprimand and suspension, with or without pay, are authorized, and each offense is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Also, it appears that all penalties listed in any School Board Policy are recommended, but not mandatory, to apply to specific offenses and that the penalty utilized is to be discretionary with management, per Policies 6.37, and 6.38. Policy 6.38, authorizes the Superintendent to suspend employees without pay for up to 10 days as a disciplinary measure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner: Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent O'Brien's reprimand and suspension without pay for five days; and Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent DiPaolo's reprimand and suspension without pay for three days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Hwy. 19 North, Ste. 110 Clearwater, FL 33761 Dr. Wayne Alexander, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Ms. Ivey from her employment with the Pinellas County School Board.
Findings Of Fact In 2005, Ms. Ivey was hired by the School Board to work as a school bus driver (bus driver). The position of school bus driver is covered by the 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, and SEIU/Florida Public Services Union, CTW-CLC (Collective Bargaining Agreement). One of the many requirements to operate a Pinellas County school bus is to undergo a medical/physical examination every year. Among the physical requirements, bus drivers are to maintain at least 20/40 vision in each eye (with or without corrective lenses). On Wednesday, January 23, 2013, Ms. Ivey underwent her yearly physical examination (exam). As a result of this exam, Ms. Ivey's "Work Status" was "PE on hold," meaning Ms. Ivey was not able to work as a bus driver until some corrective measures involving her eyesight were obtained. Ms. Ivey completed her morning bus routes prior to her exam on January 23. After her exam, Ms. Ivey called in sick and did not complete her afternoon school bus routes. On January 24, Ms. Ivey completed both her morning and afternoon bus routes without incident. However, she took sick leave for the remainder of January 2013 (five work days). Ms. Ivey's first day back from her sick leave was February 4, 2013. Each school bus is equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) monitoring device. Once the school bus is turned on the GPS automatically records the school bus position every 30 seconds. The GPS also records other activities that the school bus performs, e.g., when the amber caution lights are turned on or off, when the red stop lights are turned on or off, when the entrance door opens or closes, etc. Because of the cost of fuel, the School Board's policy is that no school bus idles for more than five minutes. If a bus must idle for more than five minutes, the bus driver is required to turn off the bus until it needs to move. Each school bus is required to stop at each assigned bus stop whether or not a student is present. This is to maintain the published schedule for subsequent school bus riders. Each school bus is also equipped with a two-way radio for constant communication with Petitioner's transportation dispatchers. In the event of an incident (or accident), there is an additional emergency channel for use by the dispatcher and the affected school bus driver. Prior to each school year, school bus drivers are provided training in how to handle an incident (or accident). When an incident occurs, the driver is to immediately contact the transportation dispatcher, remain at the scene of the incident, ensure the safety of the students, and cooperate fully with the investigation. The bus driver is to complete an incident report and turn it in to the transportation division before the end of the incident day. The school bus that Ms. Ivey drove on February 4, 2013, was equipped with the two-way radio and the GPS. Ms. Ivey's published/authorized school bus route (for the middle school pick-up) started at 8:15 a.m. each morning when she was to pick up her riding assistant, Courtney McClendon,3/ at 102nd Avenue and Seminole Boulevard. This stop was in a large parking lot, close to a Little Caesar's restaurant (restaurant). The second bus stop, where the first student was to be picked up, was located at 97th Street North and Lake Seminole Drive East (corner location). Without the School Board's permission or authorization, Ms. Ivey unilaterally changed her school bus route to begin with the student pick-up at the corner location. On February 4, Ms. Ivey began her middle school bus route at the corner location. According to the GPS, Ms. Ivey entered the corner location neighborhood at 8:32 a.m., and could not have been at the designated corner location bus stop at 8:18 a.m. The student rider was not at the corner location when the school bus arrived. There was no indication, via the GPS, that either the amber caution or red stop lights were activated for this stop, or that the entrance door opened or closed to allow a student to enter the bus. Ms. Ivey turned the school bus onto 97th Street and stopped at the red light at 102nd Avenue (stop light corner). As Ms. Ivey was looking left (in order to turn right), she heard a knock on the school bus door, but did not see the student. Ms. Ivey completed the right-turn onto 102nd Avenue West and then, in her right rear-view mirror noticed a student falling down. Ms. Ivey did not immediately stop the school bus, but drove to the restaurant approximately two minutes away. There, Ms. Ivey turned on her amber lights and opened the door for Ms. McClendon to board the school bus. While at the restaurant, Ms. Ivey radioed Petitioner's transportation dispatcher that she might have hit a student. Ms. Ivey left the restaurant and drove back to the corner location. Despite having a two-way radio on board the school bus and repeated attempts by the dispatcher to contact her, Ms. Ivey and the dispatcher failed to communicate again for over 45 minutes. Upon notification of the incident, the transportation dispatcher switched to the emergency frequency; however, Ms. Ivey stayed on the regular two-way radio frequency. Two transportation supervisors were immediately dispatched to investigate the incident at the restaurant, as this was the location where the incident was reported. Once they arrived, the supervisors were unable to locate the school bus, Ms. Ivey, or Ms. McClendon (the trio) at or near the restaurant. In an effort to locate the trio, the supervisors traveled to several more school bus stops, but only found students waiting for the school bus.4/ After searching for over 45 minutes, the supervisors finally located the trio at the corner location. At that time the transportation supervisors determined that the stop light corner location was where the incident actually occurred. One week after the incident, on February 11, Ms. Ivey completed and turned in the "DRIVER'S REPORT OF INCIDENT." Petitioner's field operations supervisor, Ms. Cross had to make repeated requests to Ms. Ivey to get her to turn in the report. On three separate occasions, Ms. Ivey was noticed to appear at the Office of Professional Standards to answer questions regarding the January medical issue and the February 4th incident. At the meeting on February 20, 2013, Ms. Ivey refused to answer questions about either matter. During the second meeting on February 28, shortly after the meeting began, Ms. Ivey asked to use the restroom, left the room, and never returned to complete the meeting. Although she was noticed for the third meeting to begin at 7:30 a.m. on March 4, Ms. Ivey did not arrive for that meeting until after 3:00 p.m. During this third meeting, Ms. Ivey again refused to answer questions about either matter. Ms. Ivey's employment disciplinary history with the School Board is as follows: 02/08/10 Ms. Ivey received a "Conference Summary" for failing to correct performance deficiencies; 02/18/10 Ms. Ivey received a Conference Summary" for failing to comply with board policy, state law, or appropriate contractual agreement; 10/20/11 Ms. Ivey received a "Caution" for failing to comply with board policy, state law, or the appropriate contractual agreement and misconduct; 05/23/12 Ms. Ivey received a "Reprimand" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies; 12/15/12 Ms. Ivey received a "Reprimand" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies; and 02/20/13 Ms. Ivey received a "Conference Summary" for failing to perform the duties of the position and failing to correct performance deficiencies. Despite repeated opportunities to provide her version of the events, Ms. Ivey declined to present her case in a manner that would warrant serious consideration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner terminate Ms. Ivey's employment as a school bus driver as a consequence of her repeated violations of School Board Policies 4140 A.9, A.9a., A.19., A.20., A.22., and A.24. The violation of any one of these subsections, standing alone, is sufficiently severe so as to warrant Ms. Ivey's termination from employment as a school bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 20th day of August, 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.
Findings Of Fact Exception No. 1 - That portion of Findings of Fact No. 15, which finds that "(t)he Division has consistently denied Petitioners the right to purchase their service with the Pawley companies", is clearly erroneous and not substantiated by the evidence of record. Petitioners are correct in that the Division has advised them by letter (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, #17B) that they were able to buy their prior service with Pawley at full actuarial cost. However, that was not an issue nor the subject of this proceeding, and the finding of fact must be considered in the context of the ultimate issue in this case, that being whether or not the Petitioners were entitled to purchase their prior service at the reduced rates provided in Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes. ,with respect to that issue, the Division has consistently denied Petitioners the right to purchase their prior service. The Report of Proceedings of the Dade County Independent Review Panel (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, #10) contains a similar statement. That statement appears to be based on statements of Mr. Stone and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, #17B, above. The Report of Proceedings is hearsay and duplicates the facts and exhibits presented at the hearing. In the context of the issue in this case, the Proposed Finding of Fact No. 15 is correct, and Petitioners' exception is rejected being without factual basis in the record. Exception No. 2 - That portion of Findings of Fact No. 17, which finds that "the IRP de- termined what the "Cut-Off" date of March 27, 1962, was a "reasonable decision" to end the "period of solicitation", is irrelevant and immaterial, unless it is considered together with whether the Petitioners were given ade- cuate notice of that "reasonable decision". Petitioners claim that the above finding is irrelevant and immaterial unless considered together with the "issue" of adequate notice. The only question the Division may consider is whether or not the finding of fact was based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Since there is no evidence in record to contradict the proposed finding of fact, it is the only finding that the Hearing Officer or the Division could have reached. It is based on competent, substantial evidence in the record. The proposed finding of fact was made based on the finding of the Independent Review Panel in its Report of Proceedings. Petitioners accepted the report of the Panel and placed the Report into evidence at the hearing. They are not attempting a collateral attack on the report. Such an attack should not be a-lowed In the absence of good and sufficient reason. The question of relevancy and materiality raised by Petitioners is an appropriate objection at the time the evidence is introduced at the hearing but is inappropriate in attacking a finding of fact In a recommended order. Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 3 - That portion of Findings of Faction 20 which finds that "(i)t is under- standable that Dade County gassed a resolution simply supporting Petitioners in their claims, rather than placing Petitioners in their claims situation as any other Pawley employee who came to work for Dade County before 3/27/62, since the latter position would cost Dade County $104,696 for retroactive benefits. Petitioners claim the above finding 15 clearly erroneous and misleading, and not supported by substantial and competent evidence In the record. Petitioners discuss certain amounts necessary to purchase employee benefits and other amounts needed to purchase creditable service in the Florida Retirement System. By discussing the two amounts as if they were one amount, Petitioners clearly show their understanding of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. The Division advised Petitioners that it would cost Petitioner Stone $18,997.12 and Petitioner Wilson $11,657.23 to purchase their prior service should they prevail in the case at bar. In the event Dade County had considered all three petitioners to be continuously employed from the date of the strike to the respective dates of their reemployment the cost to the County to pay retroactive benefits would have been 5104.E95. Since the County and not consider Petitioners to be employees during this period, it did not pay for the normal employees fringe benefits. The payment of those benefits (albeit, retroactively) is represented by the $104,695 amount. Thus, the two amounts discussed by Petitioners represent two different funds; one to be paid by Petitioners for prior service, and one to be paid by Dade County for fringe benefits, but not including Petitioners' prior service. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion that their employment percentent and payroll status from the date of the strike to the respective dates of reemployment was not the issue in this case, the Division believes that that issue is at the very heart of this case. In order to purchase their prior service at the rates permitted by Section 121.081(1)(g) , Florida Statutes, Petitioners had to be employees of the County on March 2, 1962. If they were employees, then they are due the appropriate employee benefits for that period of time. However, since the County did not pay those benefits, then Petitioners were obviously not employees during the period at issue and, therefore, not eligible to purchase the creditable service under Section 121.06.1(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 4 - That portion of Findings or Fact No. 22 which finds that "/i/n addition to the obvious fact that petitioners were par- ticipating in an illegal strike and were in violation of the restraining order of the cir- cuit court, they voluntarily abandoned their right to employment by not commencing their jobs by March 27, 1962", is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. In reviewing this proceeding to determine the legality vel non of the strike, It seems obvious that the strike was illegal under one or both of two principles (see Finding of Fact No. 4). First, it was illegal under existing state law; and second, it was illegal for being in violation of the injunction issued by the circuit court. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, pg. 271. The union in which Petitioners ware members, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric, Railway and Motor Coach Employee of America ("Union") was involved in labor negotiations concerning the future status of the Union after the transfer. The County filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court (Respondent's Exhibits 4 against the Union. In its final decree, the circuit court stated in part that: "2. plaintiffs are not require by law to offer employment to members of the defendant union, . . . plaintiffs are not authorized by law to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with defendants and would not be authorized to do so upon consummation of the contractual transaction evidenced by the record in this cause. plaintiffs are not authorized to recog- nized as lawful any strike directed against them and would not be authorized to do so upon consummation of the con- tractual transaction evidenced by-the record in this cause." (Respondent's Exhibit 4, numbered pages 199-200) Notwithstanding the above provisions the Union went on strike on January 29, 1962 (Respondent's Exhibit.4, numbered pg. 256); the Court, after issuing an order to show cause (id. numbered pg. 259), ordered that the Union was "enjoined and restrained from striking or continuing any strike for the purpose of covering the plaintiffs (county) or any other governmental agency to engage in collective bargaining". (Id, numbered pg. 271) However, the Union continued on strike. The case was appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. The illegality of the strike under state law was affirmed by that court in Dade County v. Amalgamated Assn. of S.E.R. of M.C. Employees, et al, 157 So.2d 176, 183 (Fla. 3rd DC. 1963). The second issue concerning the violation of the injunction was never appealed, and the Union and its members were in continued violation of the injunction by remaining on strike. Accordingly, petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 5 - That portion of Findings of Fact No. 23, which finds that "/p/etitioners claim that any returning strikers employed more than "one day" after the takeover, had a in service", is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. Petitioners claim that absence from employment of "one calendar month" constitutes a "break in continuous service". In reviewing the exhibits, we note that petitioners' Exhibit No. 2, 12, listed 33 individuals who were prior employees of the Pawley companies, went on strike and returned to work by March 27, 1962. These individuals were given retroactive benefits by Dade County and, therefore, the right to purchase the prior service under Section 121.081(1), Florida Statutes. Some of those individuals were hired by the County before the end of "one calendar month" (that is to say, before March 9, 1962) and others were hired after that date. Petitioners originally argued that an absence of one day constituted a break in service. Apparently, they have changed their position since the hearing and now argue that "one calendar month" constitutes a "break in continuous service". However, based on the facts shown and the arguments bade at the hearing the Hearing Officer's finding of fact is correct and is based on competent substantial evidence. Even if Petitioners were correct, the change from "one day" to "one calendar month" would not change the fact that they did not become employees of the County as a result of the transfer or merger of the private bus company. Petitioners' objection is rejected. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Exception No. E - Conclusion of Law No. 4. Petitioners' claim that Dade County recognized and credited them with their past service with Pawley. The evidence and testimony given at the hearing does not substantiate their claim. While the transmittal letter of Mr. Talbert (Petitioners' Exhibit No.2,#14) states that the "County Commission instructed the County Manager that the above subject employees shall be considered by Dade County to have an original employment date reflecting their employment with the Pawley companies", the actual motion by Commissioner Shack was "that Hodowud, Stone and Wilson be permitted to purchase their past services from the Satate of Florida at the reduced rate." Further, the testimony of Mr. Richard Jay Weiss, Assistant Dade County Attorney, and his exhibit (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) do not support Petitioners' position. The Exhibit states in part as follows: ". . .the County Commission has gone on record by motion to urge the State Retirement System to allow the three present claimants to receive their back time at the reduced rate". Thus, the County merely urged the Division to allow Petitioners to purchase their prior service and did not itself credit them with their past service with retroactive fringe benefits. The bearing Officer's conclusion of law is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No.7 - Conclusion of Law No. 5 Petitioners' claim that the Hearing Officers' conclusion that they did not enjoy an employee/employer relationship at the time of takeover is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Section 11 of Ordinance 60-23 of Dade County (petitioners' Exhibit 2, item 1) states that: "whenever the County acquires existing transit systems or facilities from a publicly or pri- vately owned public utility, to the extent necessary or feasible for the economical opera- tion of such facilities, all of the employees of such acquired transit system whose duties pertain to the facilities acquired shall be employed In comparable positions in the County service and the pay status, seniority, vacation and sick leave rights shall be preserved and maintained to the fullest possible extent. All employees of the Authority shall be deemed, con- sidered or construed as County employees and shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and benefits of County employees." Since the County cannot force any person to work or it the words "all of the employees" and "shall be employed" can logically only refer to those employees who decide to go to work for the County and conversely do not include those employees who voluntarily decide not to work for the County. In addition to the fact that the Hearing Officer found that Petitioners were participating in an illegal strike and were in violation of the restraining order of the circuit court, Petitioners voluntarily abandoned their right to employment by not returning to their jobs by March 27, 1962. Later, when they finally did commence employment with MTA, they were hired as new employees rather than previous employees who were being given reemployment. The hearing officer's conclusion of law is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and Petitioners' objection is rejected. Exception No. 8 - Conclusion of Law No. 7 Petitioners argue that the met their burden of proving that they were entitled to purchase their service under Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes; however, they offer no basis in law or fact would allow the Division to conclude the Hearing Officer was in error. In the absence of an adequate legal basis or contrary evidence in the record, the Division rejects Petitioners' objection. By motion prior to the hearing, Petitioners Wilson and Stone moved to add Metropolitan Dade County as a art Respondent. The motion was denied by the bearing Officer, and the Division hereby adopts that ruling as part of this final order. The Recommended Order is corrected at page 8, paragraph 20, line 6, wherein the month of "January" is changed to read "February". WHEREFORE based upon the foregoing findings, holdings and rulings or the Division as to Petitioners' exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, it is, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that each and every exception of the Petitioners' to the Recommended Order be and the same are OVERRULED and REJECTED. It is further, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that copy of said Recommended Order is attached hereto and incorporated as part of this final order. It is further, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Petitioners' requests to purchase in the Florida Retirement System their prior service with the Pawley companies at the rates allowed in Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes, are denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October, 1983. J. MULLIAN, III State Retirement Director Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Retirement this 21st day of October, 1983. Edna E. Canino, Esquire 1609 NW 14th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Edward F. Hodowud 8874 Emerson Avenue Surfside, Florida 33154 Linda M. Rigot, Hearing Officer Dan Brown, Esquire Division of Administrative Hearings John Finney, Esquire The Oakland Building Paul McMahon 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioners' requests to purchase in the Florida Retirement System their prior service with the Pawley companies at a reduced rate pursuant to Section 121.081(1)(g), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edna E Canino, Esquire 1609 NW 14th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Mr. Edward F. Hodowud 8874 Emerson Avenue Surfside, Florida 33154 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT NORMA WILSON, EDWARD F. HODOWUD, and, WESLEY E. STONE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3192 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the School Board should terminate or take other disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joe Thomas Alford, Jr., started working for the Bay County School Board in 1980, as a substitute school bus driver. His first full-time position with the School Board was as a "gasoline attendant," a position he assumed in 1981. After Larry Daniels became superintendent of transportation in July of 1985, he granted Mr. Alford's request to be permitted to resume driving a school bus. By all accounts, Mr. Alford did a good job as a full-time bus driver through the end of the school year 1986-87, except for the day he received a speeding ticket while driving a school bus. On another occasion, he exhibited great courage, even heroism, as one of the drivers in a convoy returning from an athletic contest. When the lead bus had an accident that made it impossible for students to get out of the bus in the usual way, Mr. Alford climbed in through a window and kicked out the emergency door, leaking gas tank notwithstanding. 1987-88 On the morning of October 16, 1987, Mr. Alford failed to report for work to drive school bus No. 340 on its three accustomed runs, necessitating the tardy dispatch of another driver. Later, in response to Mr. Daniels' questions, he explained that Harry Wells, a substitute school bus driver, had agreed to drive for him on the morning of the 16th (among other times), with the understanding that Mr. Alford would drive on a field trip for Mr. Wells. It was to an apparent misunderstanding that Mr. Alford attributed his absence without giving notice or arranging for a substitute on October 16, 1987. At the time, school board procedure required a bus driver who was to be absent for any reason to arrange for a substitute, as Mr. Alford apparently thought he had done, and to report the arrangement to the payroll clerk at the office of the superintendent of transportation. But the agreement went unreported, and no approval of the exchange was ever obtained. On October 26, 1987, Mr. Daniels, then superintendent of transportation, and Patricia Holland, route manager for routes including those Mr. Alford drove, Harry Wells and Mr. Alford gathered to discuss the lack of coverage on October 16, 1987. Mr. Alford told everybody present about his plan to drive on a field trip November 6, 1987, which would necessitate his missing the afternoon runs that day. He said (and Mr. Wells was there to deny it, if it had not been true) that Mr. Wells had agreed to substitute for him on the afternoon of November 6, 1987. Eventually this information reached Janet, who logged in Mr. Wells as a substitute for the afternoon runs on November 6, 1987. On the morning of November 6, however, Mr. Alford failed to appear, again without giving notice and without arranging for a substitute. Again it was necessary to make belated arrangements for another driver. Later that morning, Mr. Alford telephoned to report that his wife had locked him out of his house, and that he had lost access to his personal effects. He said that personal problems had prevented his driving that morning, and explained that, without clothes, he would be unable to drive on the field trip that afternoon, as well. In the afternoon, a substitute drove in his stead, without any report of inconvenience to anybody who went on the field trip. On Monday, February 8, 1988, somebody called from Mowat Junior High School with word that school bus No. 340 had not arrived as of quarter past two that afternoon. Ordinarily, and according to schedule, the bus arrived at the school by two o'clock, was loaded by five past, then left Mowat on the first of three runs the bus made each afternoon. When the report that school bus No. 340 had not arrived at Mowat reached the transportation office, Mr. Carter looked in the bus barn out back and saw that the bus was still there. He himself, despite his supervisory position as route manager for the Rutherford district, made two of the three runs for which Mr. Alford was responsible, while another driver drove children home from Hiland Park school. At no time on Monday afternoon did Mr. Alford communicate with the transportation office or with any of his supervisors or with anybody else employed by the school board. When he reported to work on Tuesday morning, he set out in school bus No. 340, without speaking to anybody in the transportation office. His supervisor, Patricia Holland, called Mr. Griffin, the assistant principal in charge of loading and unloading buses at Mowat and asked him to tell Mr. Alford to telephone. Later in the day Mr. Alford did call. He said he had missed work the afternoon before because, coming back from Tyndall Air Force Base, he had had a flat tire. He said he had given a hitchhiker (who he purportedly picked up just before the problem with the tire) 50 cents for a telephone call and asked him to call the school board's transportation office to say he could not get to work. He also said that he was worried about his wife and believed that she had a tumor in her arm. But nobody had telephoned the day before and, for the third time, respondent was orally reprimanded for not reporting for work and failing to give notice beforehand. At a meeting with his supervisors later in February of 1988, Mr. Alford declined to sign a document reciting these three lapses in his attendance record, although assigning the wrong date to one of them. No contemporaneous, independent, written records of counseling on October 16 and November 6 were prepared. On the morning of April 7, 1988, Mr. Tucker of Mosley High School called at half past seven to report that school bus No. 340 was late. As he spoke, it arrived, although it had been due at 6:55 a.m. Unmollified, Mr. Tucker complained that such a late arrival was disruptive because a number of the children ate breakfast at the school and had to be fed, even if they were late. Respondent's supervisors discussed these matters with him that day, and a record was made of the counseling on April 7, 1988. 1988-89 Before students returned for the next school year, all bus drivers hired for the 1988-89 term attended a meeting. In the future, the school bus drivers were told, they should report to the route manager for their district in an emergency or if, for some other reason, they would be unable to appear for work. Rather than making arrangements themselves, they were advised, they should let the route manager contact a substitute. On the morning of October 12, 1988, at quarter of seven, Clarice Rehberg, the route manager for the Bay High School District (which is not the district in which Mr. Alford's route was located) received a telephone call from Mr. Alford, who said that he was in Pensacola, and that his car had broken down. He also told her that school bus No. 340 was in the shop for repair, so that a substitute driver would need another bus. Finally, he let her know that the first scheduled pickup was to have been five minutes earlier at the cemetery on 17th Street. Despite Ms. Rehberg's prompt action, school children on all three runs to Mosley and Hiland Park were late for school that day. At all pertinent times, school bus drivers, including substitutes, were required to make a pre-trip inspection, which sometimes takes fifteen minutes, before driving a school bus in the morning. The following morning at about five o'clock Ms. Rehberg received a second telephone call from Mr. Alford, who again reported that he was calling from Pensacola. He said that he had called Harvey Childress in hopes that Harvey would substitute for him that morning, but that Harvey told him that he was already driving. As the "barn book" reflected, Ms. Rehberg had already scheduled Mr. Childress to drive Mr. Alford's route, morning and afternoon, just as he had done the day before. It was just as well Ms. Rehberg had the foresight to arrange for Mr. Childress to drive that afternoon because Mr. Alford never showed up. On Thursday, October 13, 1988, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Enterkin, who also drove a school bus for the Bay County School Board, spotted Mr. Alford and two friends in a car waiting at a stop sign. During the ensuing conversation, Mr. Alford told Mr. Enterkin that he was taking the rest of the week off. He also said something about having to go to Pensacola because he could not get the lights fixed on his new car. On Thursday afternoon, Mr. Alford telephoned Mr. Conway, the new supervisor of transportation, telling him that he was at a service station in Pensacola waiting for money to be wired to fix his car. On October 14, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Alford called and said that he was ready to go back to work. Mr. Conway asked him to come see him before he reported for any further duties as a bus driver. Missing a three o'clock appointment the following Tuesday, Mr. Alford appeared in Mr. Conway's office at three o'clock on Wednesday, saying that he must have gotten the days mixed up. The conversation between the men was short, to the point, and unpleasant. Mr. Conway suspended Mr. Alford with pay. On October 26, 1988, the school board suspended him without pay. The present proceedings followed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner terminate respondent's employment. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0634 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, it was not clear that he needed approval from anybody other than the substitute at that time. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19 is properly a conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 15, 16, 23, and 26 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 28 through 31, and 32 pertain to immaterial matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact No. 10, 14, 17 through 20, 22, 27, and 33 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence did not show any understanding that Mr. Wells had agreed to take the morning run on November 6, 1987. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, there was no morning route to Perry, and he supposedly stayed with the car. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 the respondent did not give notice he was going to be absent. The hearing officer has not seen a hearing transcript. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the weight of the evidence showed he did not place a call to Ms. Holland on October 12, 1988. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the route was not "covered" on time. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, respondent did not tell Ms. Rehberg in advance that he was not going to report for the afternoon run on October 12, 1989. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 34, the evidence demonstrated knowing, intentional disregard of instructions to let people know of impending absences far enough ahead of time for other arrangements to be made. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 35 is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson Superintendent of Bay County Schools 5205 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32401 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison Sale, Smoak, Harrison, Sale McCloy & Thompson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32401 Pamela L. Cooper Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, who swung a belt at or near a student while disciplining the student for unacceptable behavior on a school bus, gave Petitioner——her employer, the district school board——just cause to dismiss Respondent from her position as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent Rosa Harrell ("Harrell") as a bus driver, a position she has held since 1998. To date, her disciplinary record as a District employee is clear. The events in dispute occurred on the afternoon of April 27, 2016, as Harrell drove students home from Christa McAuliffe Middle School. During the run, Harrell noticed that a student was eating on the bus, which is specifically described as "unacceptable behavior" on page 31 of the District's School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook (the "Handbook"), as is drinking any beverage on the bus. State law mandates that a "school bus driver shall require order and good behavior by all students being transported on school buses." § 1006.10(1), Fla. Stat. To this end, drivers are invested with "the authority and responsibility to control students during the time students are on the school bus . . . ." § 1012.45(2), Fla. Stat. The Handbook likewise requires that drivers "maintain order and appropriate student behavior while on the school bus at all times." Handbook, at 28.1/ Faced with unacceptable student behavior, which drivers have a duty to subdue, Harrell demanded that the student or students bring her their "crackers" and "soda too," immediately. At the time Harrell gave this order, the bus was stopped, probably at a red light. The student(s) did not promptly comply, and Harrell repeated the command, urging them, multiple times, to "come on!" The student(s) still failed to obey, and after about a half-minute, Harrell stepped on the gas pedal, causing the bus to accelerate——presumably because the light had turned green. Finally, a student came forward and handed Harrell some food, which she tossed out the driver's open window. The student then returned to his seat. Harrell, driving, again ordered the student who had been seen drinking to "bring [the soda] here." Eventually a boy came forward and handed Harrell a soda can, which she threw out the window. This boy tattled on another student, M.M., who had been eating and drinking on the bus, too. There is no dispute that M.M., a sixth-grader at the time, engaged in this unacceptable behavior. The informant suggested that Harrell slam on the brakes and deal with M.M. right away, but Harrell indicated that she would take care of M.M. at the next stop. True to her word, after coming to a complete stop at the next light, Harrell engaged the parking brake, unstrapped her seat belt, and headed to the rear of the bus to confront M.M. As she walked back, one of the students removed his cloth belt, as others shouted, "Take it!" Harrell said to M.M., "You drinking on the bus with your big ol' self." She took the belt when it was offered to her. The District argues that Harrell meant to embarrass M.M. by drawing attention to his size, and M.M. testified that the driver's remark about his "big ol' self" had made him feel uncomfortable. The undersigned rejects the argument, finding instead that Harrell in fact used the slangy adjective "big ol'" not to tease the student about his weight,2/ but to intensify the reference to M.M.'s "self." She was not calling him fat; she was calling him self-important. The approximate meaning of her statement, in other words, was: You think you're such a big shot, drinking on the bus. The undersigned is not convinced that this comment caused M.M. the discomfort he currently claims to have experienced.3/ When Harrell reached M.M., who was sitting by himself on the bench seat, she took his hand, raised his arm, and swung the belt in M.M.'s direction, striking the side of the seat five times. The parties sharply dispute whether Harrell intended to hit M.M. with the belt, and also whether she did so, either on purpose or by accident. Having considered all of the evidence, including the videos, the undersigned finds that, most likely, Harrell did not intend to strike M.M. The event took place in an atmosphere of boisterous laughter, suggesting to the undersigned that the students did not regard Harrell as a genuine threat to M.M. The student himself did not react as though he were in fear of being struck, as he continued to hold up and view his cellphone throughout the incident. Finally, had Harrell intended to hit M.M. with the belt, she almost certainly would have landed solid blows, for he was a sitting duck at close range. Such blows likely would be plain to see on the available videos. But the videos in evidence do not unambiguously show the belt striking the student, giving additional grounds for doubting that Harrell intended to hit M.M. The best description the undersigned can give for Harrell's conduct during the "whupping" of M.M. is that it was one part pantomime, one part burlesque, and one part horseplay, a kind of show whose purpose was to discipline M.M., to be sure, but with parodic violence, not with real violence, discharging her duty to maintain acceptable student behavior while winking, metaphorically, at the students. Harrell did not act, the undersigned believes, with malice or cruelty or the intent to cause M.M. harm. She intended to hit the seat in close enough proximity to M.M. that it would look like she was "whupping" the student. Just because Harrell did not intend to hit M.M. with the belt, however, does not mean that she missed him when she swung in his direction. M.M. testified that Harrell caught him on the leg. The video evidence is inconclusive but does not clearly contradict M.M.'s testimony. Ultimately, based on the totality of the evidence, including the videos, the undersigned cannot find without hesitation that Harrell struck M.M. with the belt. While evidence of such contact is less than clear and convincing, a preponderance of the evidence persuades the undersigned that the belt, more likely than not, clipped M.M. on one of its passes. Fortunately for all concerned, M.M. was not injured. Although Harrell's intentions were good, or at least not bad, her judgment in this instance was very poor. M.M.'s hands were not clean, of course, because he had engaged in unacceptable student conduct, but a driver should not swing a belt at a student——even without the intent to impose actual corporal punishment——just for eating on the bus. Harrell's actions created an indefensible risk of accidental harm that outweighed all reasonable disciplinary justifications. Thus, even without clear and convincing proof that Harrell hit a student, the District has convinced the undersigned to determine, without hesitation, that Harrell engaged in misconduct affecting the health, safety, or welfare of M.M., in contravention of a written District policy. Had Harrell's actions clearly constituted a real and immediate danger to the District, the District would have had a factual basis not to administer progressive discipline, which is otherwise generally a requirement under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Her actions, however, immediately affected, not the District as a whole, but only one person, M.M., and even he was not placed in real and immediate danger. To explain, while Harrell unreasonably exposed M.M. to a risk of accidental harm, which is just cause for disciplinary action, she did not intend to hurt him: harm was foreseeable, but not imminent. If Harrell had intended to cause injury (which she did not), then harm would have been, not only foreseeable, but nearly inevitable. In that hypothetical case, her conduct would have constituted an immediate danger to M.M. In the event, it did not. Nor did Harrell's actions constitute a clearly flagrant and purposeful violation of any District policies or rules, which ultimate fact, were it true, would have supplied an alternative basis for skipping progressive discipline. A veteran driver with a previously spotless disciplinary record, Harrell suffered a momentary lapse of judgment and, in a misguided effort to discipline a student for engaging in unacceptable behavior, committed a disciplinable offense herself. Her conduct was ill-advised but not obviously and willfully contumacious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order finding Harrell guilty of misconduct in office and imposing the following penalties therefor: (a) verbal reprimand; (b) written reprimand; and (c) 30-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2017.
