08-001012TTS Hernando County School Board vs. Jennifer M. Gallagher Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, December 4, 2008.

Summary: Petitioner demonstrated through proof of very excessive unexplained abasences, that it has "just cause" to terminate the Respondent`s employment.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HERNANDO COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-1012

)

JENNIFER M. GALLAGHER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice this cause came on for formal proceeding

and hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings, in Brooksville, Florida, on August 29, 2008. The

appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire

Hernando County School Board

919 North Broad Street

Brooksville, Florida 34601

For Respondent: Jennifer M. Gallagher, pro se

1223 Sanger Avenue

Spring Hill, Florida 34608

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES :

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Hernando County School Board (Board), the Petitioner, has just cause to terminate the Respondent's

employment, related to alleged excessive absences, during the

2007-2008 school year.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose when the Board advised the Respondent that

her employment was being terminated based upon alleged excessive

absenteeism and failure to follow board policies with regard to

absences. The Respondent availed herself of the right to a

formal proceeding and hearing to contest the position of the

Board. The Petition was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings and ultimately to the undersigned

Administrative Law Judge. After a continuance was granted, for

good cause, the matter was scheduled for final hearing on

August 29, 2008.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Petitioner

presented the testimony of two witnesses at hearing:

Mr. Charles Johnson and Ms. Heather Martin. Mr. Johnson is the

principal of Westside Elementary School and Ms. Martin is the

executive director of the Office of Business Services and Human

Resources for the Board. The Petitioner had Exhibits 1 through

31 received into evidence.

The Respondent presented the testimony of Jennifer

Gallagher as the only witness. The Respondent offered Exhibits

one through three which were received into evidence. Upon

conclusion of the hearing the parties determined to have the

evidence transcribed and to submit proposed recommended orders.

The Proposed Recommended Orders were timely received and have

been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order. All

references are to the 2007 version of the Florida Statutes

unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner Board is charged with operating and

administering the Hernando County School District. Through its

principals and human resources personnel the Board is charged

with operating and regulating all personnel matters, including

the monitoring of attendance for all employees at each school

operated by the Board.

2. Mr. Charles Johnson was the Principal at Westside

Elementary School (WES) for the 2007-2008 school year at issue

in this case. He had been the principal at that school since

1988 and it was his duty, among other personnel matters, to

monitor the attendance of his employees at the school.

3. The Respondent was employed at WES during the 2007-2008

school year. She had been hired to work there for the first

time that year. She had, however, been employed by the Board as

a teacher since 1997. Prior to the school year in question, the

Respondent had a very favorable record as a teacher for the

Board.

4. Soon after the Respondent came to work at WES for the

2007-2008 school year she began to exhibit a pattern of frequent

absences. The principal, Mr. Johnson, became concerned with

Respondent's absences in late September of 2007 because a

parent-teacher conference was imminent and report cards or

progress reports were due for the first nine-week grading period

around that time.

5. The principal maintained a record of the teachers'

attendance, including the Respondent. He created a log

documenting the Respondent's absences from August 2007 through

January 2008. The Respondent was absent five days in August and

present for ten days. She was present for ten days and absent

for nine days in September. The Respondent was absent on both

October 1 and 2, 2007, as well.

6. The Respondent called the principal's secretary on

October 2nd to advise that she had a doctor's appointment on the

third and would return to work on the fourth. The Respondent

did not return to work on October 4th, however. The principal

thereupon sent the Respondent a letter advising her that her

absences were excessive and she needed to report to work by

October 10th. He gave her some lead time in getting back to

work because he was unaware of the reasons why she was missing

so much work. He also wanted to allow for any delays due to

mailing time for his letter, which was mailed on October 4th.

7. The Respondent called the principal and spoke with him

on October 8th and advised him that she had been sick and had

been "beaten-up." She assured him that she would return to work

the next day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work

the next day and also failed to come to work on October 10,

2007, as directed in the principal's letter. She did call the

school office and leave a voice mail on the principal's phone

that morning assuring him that she would be at work the next

day, which was October 11th.

8. The Respondent did not return to work on October 11th

as promised. Because of her failure to return to work, the

principal sent a letter to her dated October 15, 2007, advising

her that he had scheduled a "pre-disciplinary hearing" for

October 19, 2007, which she should attend. The purpose of that

hearing was to give her an opportunity to explain her "excessive

absenteeism."

9. The Respondent thereupon was absent from work every day

during the week of October 15th, and then failed to attend the

scheduled hearing or meeting on October 19th. Moreover, she did

not call or otherwise communicate with the principal that week

to explain her absences or why she had missed the meeting.

10. Thereafter, the Principal sent the Respondent a letter

dated October 23, 2007, again scheduling a pre-disciplinary

hearing. The hearing was scheduled for October 30th. The

letter was both mailed and personally delivered to the

Respondent. Upon receipt of the hand-delivered copy of the

letter, the Respondent phoned the principal and spoke to him.

According to Mr. Johnson, the Principal, the Respondent told him

in this conversation that she had not opened his previous

letters, but she assured him she would be at work the following

day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work on the

following day, which was October 25, 2007, nor did she attend

the pre-disciplinary hearing on October 30th, which Mr. Johnson

had scheduled. Mr. Johnson, therefore, sent a letter to the

Respondent on October 31st advising her that he was recommending

to the Superintendent that she be suspended with pay. He sent a

letter to the School District office of Labor Relations and

Professional Standards on the same day referring the matter to

that office, along with copies of all the relevant documents he

had which evidenced what be believed were excessive absences.

11. Because of her 10 days or more of consecutive

absences, under Board policy, the Respondent was

administratively placed on unpaid leave of absence, instead of

being suspended with pay as recommended by her principal. The

unpaid leave of absence had an effective date of October 15,

2007. Such a leave of absence is designed to enable a principal

to replace a teacher in the situation of the Respondent with a

permanent certified teacher, to assure continuity of effective

instruction.

12. The Respondent was sent instructions regarding her

leave of absence by mail on October 15, 2007, from the Human

Resources Department of the District. She was thus informed

that she could elect to go on extended personal leave or on

family medical leave. No information was received from the

Respondent in response to this communication, however. The

Respondent maintains that she provided a document concerning

family medical leave. That form, however, was merely a medical

certification statement and not an actual application or request

for family medical leave. Moreover, the evidence shows that the

Respondent was not qualified for family medical leave, even had

a proper application been submitted, because she had not worked

a sufficient number of hours in the preceding school year to

establish her entitlement to family medical leave under the

relevant rules and policies.

13. An employee conference was held with the Respondent on

November 2, 2007. The Respondent, the principal, and

Ms. Barbara Kidder, who is the Director of Labor Relations and

Professional Standards for the School District, were in

attendance at the meeting. The Respondent assured them at the

meeting that she would return to work the following Monday,

November 5th and thereafter maintain satisfactory attendance.

She also agreed to seek assistance through the Employee

Assistance Program (EAP) and agreed to advise the school when

she had appointments with that program.

14. It was not unusual for Mr. Johnson to have continued

the disciplinary process and communication with the Respondent

about her absenteeism throughout the month of October, even

though she was on a leave of absence. She had been placed on

that leave of absence by the District so that it could hire a

replacement teacher. It was not a leave she had voluntarily

requested. Moreover, even without considering the days of

absence while she was on her administrative leave of absence,

the principal had a basis for pursuing disciplinary action for

the absences she had previously incurred.

15. November 5, 2007, was approved by the District as the

Respondent's "early return date" from that leave of absence,

which had started on October 15th. Indeed, the Respondent came

to work on Monday, November 5th. She was, however, absent for

the rest of that week. She did not contact either the principal

or his secretary concerning those absences. She called the

automated system for assigning substitute teachers (SEMS), which

does not constitute nor grant any excuse for an absence. It is

merely a means of scheduling or assigning substitute teachers.

16. School did not meet on November 12th, a Monday. On

Tuesday, November 13th the Respondent called and left a voice

mail message for the principal advising that she had been to the

doctor on the Friday before for strep throat and a respiratory

infection. She assured him that she would be back the following

day November 14, 2007.

17. The Respondent, however, did not report to work on

November 14th, but instead called and spoke with the principal

around 10:00 a.m., advising him that she just left the doctor's

office. She advised him that she had a note indicating she

would be clear to report to work on the following Monday. The

Principal reminded her that the next week was Thanksgiving week

and no school met that week. The Respondent then agreed to come

to work on Monday, November 26th and advised that she would have

the doctor's note with her at that time.

18. The Respondent failed to report to work on

November 26th, as she had promised and did not contact the

Principal or his secretary concerning that absence. She also

missed work November 27th through the 30th, and did not call the

principal or his secretary to explain those absences.

19. The principal accordingly sent her another letter on

November 29th advising her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was

again scheduled for December 4th to discuss her absences. She

did not attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on December 4th nor

did she report to work that entire week. She failed to contact

the principal or his secretary and explain her absences from

work that week and her absence from the scheduled meeting.

20. On December 5, 2007, the principal sent another letter

to the Respondent advising her that he was referring her case or

situation to the labor relations office. On that same date he

sent a memorandum to the director of the labor relations office

enclosing all the relevant documentation he had regarding the

absences. That office then sent the Respondent a letter on

December 5th which advised her that a pre-disciplinary meeting

was scheduled for December 12th.

21. The pre-disciplinary meeting was held on December 12th

and the Respondent and Ms. Kidder were in attendance.

Ms. Kidder gave the Respondent information on the EAP and

advised her that she would be reviewing the Respondent's case

with the Human Resources Office and the Petitioner's attorney.

22. On December 14th the Respondent met with Ms. Kidder

and the principal. The Respondent on this occasion was given a

"letter of direction," advising her that she would be assigned a

"mentor" and advising her of procedures for absences. The

procedures she was directed to follow for absences included a

stipulation that a doctor's note would be required for all

future absences.

23. The letter of direction given to the Respondent on

December 14th contained the following requirements or procedures

for the Respondent to follow with regard to her work and her

absences:

A. She was be assigned a "mentor" teacher to assist

her with transitioning back to work.

B. She was to report to administration each day

before reporting to her classroom.

C. She was to meet weekly with administration to

review her attendance and her progress.

D. She was expected to be in attendance each day

starting Monday, December 17, 2007, and was to follow the

Principal's specific directions regarding the process for

obtaining approval for sick leave.

E. She was to contact the principal if she had any

questions concerning working hours, timesheets, absences,

tardiness, sickness at work, leaving the building or related

employee issues.

F. She was being placed on probationary status for

one year and any future violations of Petitioner's policies or

procedures or any administrative directives would constitute

"just cause" for disciplinary action up to and including

termination.

G. She was expected to contact EAP and attend

counseling sessions as recommended by the staff. She was then

to document the completed counseling sessions to her principal.

24. During the December 14, 2007, meeting, the Respondent

agreed to return to work as directed. She gave no indication

that she would be unable to return to work or perform her duties

or that there would be any restrictions on her ability to return

to work.

25. The Respondent provided no doctor's notes explaining

illnesses or absences during either the December 14th meeting or

the November 2nd meeting with the Principal.

26. In fact, the Respondent did not return to work the

following Monday, December 17th. She also missed the rest of

that week and did not contact administration directly about her

absences as she had been directed to do on December 14th and as

the "letter of instruction" had directed her to do.

27. The Respondent produced phone records at the hearing

and testified that certain calls represented conversations with

either the Principal or his secretary. This was in an effort to

show that she had properly explained her absences. She did not,

however, provide corroborating testimony as to which of the

calls on the records were specific to a person as opposed to

simply leaving a voice mail for that number or receiving no

answer at all.

28. In any event, Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent a letter

on December 20th reminding her that it was her responsibility to

provide a doctor's note in explanation of her absences and that

she was supposed to return to work on December 17, 2007. The

letter reminded the Respondent that her attendance was critical.

29. The last week of December 2007 and the first week of

January 2008, constituted the District's school Christmas Break.

30. The first day of school following Christmas Break was

Monday, January 7, 2008. The Respondent did not return to work

that day, even though she later presented notes from Doctors

Khalil and Alshaar indicating that she was able to work that

day. The Respondent did report for work on January 8th, but

then was absent for January 9th and 10th. She reported for work

on January 11th, but later produced a note from Dr. Alshaar

indicating that she should be excused for that day.

31. Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent another letter on

January 25, 2008, advising her that a "pre-determination

hearing" had been scheduled for February 1, 2008, to again

review her absences since January 7, 2008.

32. The Respondent acknowledges that she received the

correspondence from the Petitioner referenced above. She was

also aware of the Petitioner's polices and procedures on

attendance and leaves of absence. She signed a receipt

indicating that she had received the Staff Handbook which

outlines specific policies and references the School Board

Policy Manual in general. Additionally, the Respondent

acknowledged to the Principal that "time and attendance" were

reviewed during her "new employee orientation" at the school.

33. Teacher absences have a negative impact on the

classroom, the students and the school. The principal had to

ask other teachers to cover the Respondent's classroom and to

use substitutes. A teacher's credibility and the trust of

students is impaired when the teacher is constantly absent or

alternately appearing or being absent from the classroom on a

frequent basis.

34. Mr. Johnson established that the Respondent had the

worst attendance record he had experienced with a teacher in his

20 or so years as a principal. Her absences for the 2007-2008

school year far exceeded that of any other teacher at the

school.

35. The Collective Bargaining Agreement covering teachers

in Hernando County, including the Respondent, provides that sick

leave is allowable without loss of pay as provided for by

Florida Law and that personal leave should be approved by work

site administrators, except in cases of substantial emergency.

The Hernando County Staff Handbook is in evidence as

Petitioner's Exhibit 24. It provides the details of the Board's

policies and procedures on absences, leaves of absence, sick

leave and leaves made necessary by sudden emergencies, etc. The

general information concerning leaves of absence, the policies

and procedures concerning family medical leave, notification of

absence, absence without leave, sick leave, depicted in that

exhibit are incorporated in these Findings of Fact by reference.

Those policies and procedures include the requirement that where

there is any doubt as to the validity of a sick leave claim, the

superintendent may require the filing of a written certification

of illness from a licensed physician or other supporting

evidence if personal illness is not involved. It then provides

the consequences of false claims for sick leave, proceeding to

list cancellation of a teacher's contract or for action seeking

revocation of a teaching contract. It also includes a provision

that an application for sick leave due to extended illness shall

have attached to it a statement from a practicing physician

certifying that such leave is essential and indicating the

probable duration of the illness and the needed leave.

36. There is no question, given the pattern of extensive

absences, and given the Respondent's lack of communication with

the principal, or even the principal's secretary, concerning the

reason for her absences or the legitimacy of any illness, that

the Principal could have doubts as to the validity of any sick

leave or illness claims. He was thus proceeding within the

appropriate policies contained in the Manual and Handbook in

requiring physician certification or proof concerning illness or

absences, which mostly was not provided by the Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

37. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).

38. The Respondent is an instructional employee of the

above-named School District, as defined by Section 1012.01(2),

Florida Statutes. In accordance with Section 1012.27, Florida

Statutes, the superintendent is authorized to recommend to the

Board that instructional employees be suspended or dismissed

from employment. The Board has the authority to terminate or

suspend such employees, pursuant to Sections 1012.22(1)(f) and

1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.

39. Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, establishes

the standard for termination of instructional personnel as being

for "just cause." That concept is not defined in a detailed

fashion in the statutes. The Petitioner has discretion, subject

to review by formal proceeding, in setting standards which

constitute just cause to discipline employees, including

termination. See Dietz v. Lee County School Board , 647 So. 2d

217 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994).

40. It is the Board's burden to establish just cause by a

preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County

School Board , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996); Dileo v.

School Board of Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990);

see also § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

41. A preponderance of evidence has established that the

Petitioner herein has "just cause" to terminate the Respondent.

The Respondent has a record of excessive absences over an

extensive period during the 2007-2008 school year, which are

without proper authorization. Indeed, even in testimony at

hearing the Respondent gave little explanation of the reason for

the absences which might have helped to justify some lesser

disciplinary measure.

42. The Petitioner presented ample evidence of the

absences as to the school year in question and the Respondent

clearly failed to follow procedures outlined in School Board

policies, as well as in specific directions given to her by her

principal upon her return from leave in November 2007 (even

without considering the frequent, unexplained absences before

the administrative leave started October 15, 2007). She further

failed to follow procedures outlined in the letter of direction

of December 14, 2007.

43. The Respondent was clearly aware of the applicable

procedures or requirements for the use of sick leave or personal

leave. She signed for the receipt of the staff handbook that

outlines the relevant procedures and references the applicable

School Board policies. She also acknowledged in writing upon

her beginning of employment at the school that she had discussed

time and attendance procedures with her supervisors. Moreover,

even the union contract advises teachers that sick leave shall

be administered in accordance with Florida Law and mirrors

certain provisions from the staff handbook or School Board

policies regarding leave.

44. The Respondent attempted to justify some of her

absences through testimony about various doctor's appointments

and diagnoses, but she failed to rebut the evidence adduced by

the Board that her absenteeism was excessive, that she failed to

comport with established procedures in the way she handled her

absences, and that it was detrimental to the school, as well as

to her students. Further, she failed to present evidence that

each absence documented by the Petitioner was excused by a

doctor's note. Even in those situations where an absence was

covered by a doctor's note, she failed to show that the absence

had indeed been excused by her Principal. It is elementary and

indeed the Respondent was on notice, that in addition to having

a doctor's note justifying an illness absence, the note must be

shown to a supervisor or Principal and approval of the absence

must be obtained. Merely obtaining the note and failing to

communicate about it does not constitute excusing an absence.

45. Concerning her position regarding her phone calls to

the school, based upon her evidence of phone bills, the

Respondent did not prove those calls resulted in excused

absences nor that they resulted in actual conversations with the

principal, a person who could excuse absences or who could

report that a justification for the absence had been provided by

the Respondent by phone or even that a message had been left on

voice mail.

46. The Respondent contends that she should be on an

extended leave of absence from October 2007 through the filing

date of the subject Petition. That has not been proven to be

the case, however. The extended leave she was placed on as of

October 15, 2007, was done by the Petitioner in accordance with

its regularly established policies, because it needed to obtain

another teacher to cover the Respondent's classes. The

administrative leave was not because the Respondent had

requested it or for some reason had shown entitlement to it.

The leave of absence was initiated by the Petitioner because the

Respondent had been absent at that point for at least 10

consecutive days, as envisioned in the School Board's leave

policy. The Respondent's potential entitlement to an extended

leave of absence was not demonstrated to the Petitioner at that

time because of her lack of communication with her supervisors

concerning her absences and the reasons for them. In a de novo

context, she also did not adequately explain a reasonable and

appropriate justification for most of her absences during her

testimony at hearing.

47. The Respondent also maintained at hearing that the

Petitioner should not have pursued this disciplinary action

against her during the extended leave of absence. There was

shown to be no policy, rule or current procedure preventing the

Board from doing so, however, and the Respondent did not raise

an objection to returning to work during the meeting she had

with the principal and Ms. Kidder on November 2, 2007. In fact,

she agreed to return to work on the following Monday,

November 5th, without condition, and indeed returned to work on

that day. She thus had to have known that her leave of absence

was finished by virtue of her return to work on November 5th.

Whether or not the Board should have pursued (in the

Respondent's view) disciplinary action during her leave of

absence period from October 15th to November 5th, 2007, the fact

remains that the preponderant evidence establishes that more

than enough absences had occurred prior to October 15th and

after November 5th to justify disciplinary action.

48. In fact, the Respondent missed half of the school days

in August and almost half of the school days in September of

2007. She also missed all but one of the days in November after

she returned to work November 5, 2007. She did not work any

days in December and only worked 2 days in January 2008. The

Respondent simply failed to explain to the Petitioner at the

time, or in her testimony at hearing, the reasons and concerning

the reason for the absence justification for all those missed

days, even for those that were covered by doctor's note. She

failed to demonstrate that the days of absence arguably

justified by a doctor's note had actually been excused by the

Petitioner, primarily because she had failed to show that she

had communicated that fact to the Petitioner, to her

supervisors.

49. The Respondent's contention that, because she had made

application for family medical leave, the termination or

disciplinary action should have been abated is without merit.

First, it was uncontroverted that the form she used to file with

the Petitioner was not an application for family medical leave

but simply a certification by her physician. Secondly, it was

uncontroverted that the Respondent was not entitled to family

medical leave, even had she properly applied for it, because she

had not worked the requisite number of hours in the preceding

school year.

50. The Respondent has predicated her defense on her

position that her illness or illnesses justified her absences

and were evidenced by physician's notes providing medical

reasons for the absences. However, there were at least two

occasions when she acted contrary to the advice of her

physicians. She was absent on January 7, 2008, despite the fact

that two treating physicians indicated in writing that she was

fit to work on that date. Conversely, she was able to come to

work on January 11, 2008, despite the fact that Dr. Alshaar had

provided her with a note indicating that she should have been

excused from work starting on January 9th and continuing through

that date. These revelations, upon cross-examination, tend to

render her testimony that her absences were justified due to

health problems, as buttressed by physicians' notes, less than

persuasive. Her absences seem more dictated by her personal

wishes than based upon actual illness supported by physicians'

notes.

51. There is no question that the preponderant, persuasive

evidence shows that the Respondent received both verbal and

written instructions concerning how to properly report and

justify her absences and yet she failed to follow those

directions repeatedly. The conclusion is inescapable that she

was less than candid with her supervisors concerning how truly

ill or incapacitated she was by alleged illness during the

course of these absences. The vast majority of her absences

were not shown to have been based upon instructions from her

physicians, but rather upon her personal wishes.

52. A number of cases in Florida have held that the

termination of teachers was justified based upon unexcused and

excessive absenteeism. See Seminole County School Board v.

Andrews , DOAH Case No. 07-2486 (RO: September 20, 2007); Duval

County School Board v. Johnson , DOAH Case No. 04-2138 (RO:

March 2, 2005).

53. In summary, the Petitioner has demonstrated by

preponderant, persuasive evidence that it has good cause to

terminate the Respondent under the circumstances delineated in

the Findings of Fact and discussed in the Conclusions of Law

above. It is unfortunate that the Respondent was not more

forthcoming with her supervisors and the Petitioner during the

course of the incurrence of these absences. Had she been so,

she might have had more success in justifying the absences.

Sadly, the same is true of her testimony at hearing, in the de

novo context of this proceeding. The Respondent had a good

record during 10 years of employment by the Petitioner, prior to

the school year in question. Based upon the evidence in this

case one must still wonder what happened to change that.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and

demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of

the parties, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School

Board of Hernando County Florida terminating the Respondent from

her position as a teacher with that School District.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

P. MICHAEL RUFF

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of December, 2008.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Dr. Eric J. Smith

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire

Hernando County School Board

919 North Broad Street

Brooksville, Florida 34601

Jennifer M. Gallagher

1223 Sanger Avenue

Spring Hill, Florida 34608

Wayne S. Alexander, Ed.D.

Superintendent

Hernando County School Board

919 North Broad Street

Brooksville, Florida 34601

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.