12-004137TTS Broward County School Board vs. Sarena Stewart Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, August 8, 2013.

Summary: Teacher should be suspended three days for gross insubordination and 30 days for misconduct in office.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case Nos. 12 - 2570TTS

12 - 4137TTS

SARENA STEWART ,

Respondent .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was

conducted in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, on May 30 and 31, 2013,

before Administrative Law Judge Claude B. Arrington of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Paul Gibbs , Esq uire

Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A.

Suite 411

15715 South Dixie Highway

Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157

For Respondent: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire

Kelly and McK ee, P.A.

Suite 301

1718 East Seventh Avenue

Post Office Box 75638

Tampa, Florida 33675 - 0638

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

As to Case 12 - 2570TTS, whether the Broward County Schoo l

Board (School Board) has good cause to suspend the employment of

Sarena Stewart (Respondent), a classroom teacher, for three days

as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School

Board on July 30, 2012.

As to Case 12 - 4137TTS, whether the Sc hool Board has good

cause to terminate Respondent's employment, as alleged in the

Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board on

December 21, 2012.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was

employed by the Schoo l Board as a classroom teacher at New River

Middle School (New River), a public school in Broward County,

Florida.

At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 19, 2012, the

School Board voted to accept the recomme ndation from Robert

Runcie, as s uperinten d ent of s chools (Superintendent), that

Respondent's employment be suspended without pay for three days

subject to her due process rights. Attached to the

recommendation was an Administrative Complaint that contained

certain factual allegations and, based o n those factual

allegations, charged that Respondent was guilty of gross

insubordination. Respondent timely requested a formal

administrative hearing; the matter was referred to DOAH, where it

was assigned Case No. 12 - 2570TTS. On January 11, 2013, the

instant case was transferred to the undersigned for all further

proceedings.

At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 18, 2012, the

School Board voted to accept the recommendation from the

Superintendent that, subject to RespondentÓs due process righ ts,

her employment be suspended without pay and terminated. Attached

to the recommendation was an Administrative Complaint that

contained certain factual allegations and, based on those factual

allegations, charged in three consecutively - numbered counts t hat

Respondent was guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and

violating the School Board's anti - bullying policy. Respondent

timely requested a formal administrative hearing; the matter was

referred to DOAH, where it was assigned Case No. 12 - 4137TTS.

On Respondent's unopposed motion, the undersigned

consolidated the two cases. Separate findings of fact and

separate recommendations are set forth in this Recommended Order.

At the final hearing, the School Board presented the

testimony of Taina Sierra (New River assistant principal),

Melinda Wessinger (New River principal), Stephanie Tegreeny (New

River math teacher), Nicole Armstrong (former New River

substitute teacher coordinator), Tommy Moore (New River language

arts teacher), Robin Terrill (New Riv er volunteer), and two

former New River students. Petitioner offered the following

pre - numbered exhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence:

2 - 7, 11, 13, 14, 16 - 21, 25, 27, 28, and 32 - 34.

Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered the

f ollowing pre - numbered exhibits, each of whi ch was admitted into

evidence: 2 - 4, 6, 14 (page 77 only), 16, and 17. On July 9,

2013, Respondent substituted Respondent's pre - marked E xhibits 3

and 4 with the correct versions of Articles 18 and 23 of the

C olle ct ive Bargaining A greement (CBA) between the School Board

and the Broward TeacherÓs Union.

A Transcript of the proceedings, consisting of two volumes,

was filed on June 13, 2013. On a joint motion, the deadline for

filing proposed recommended orders was e xtended to July 10, 2 013.

The parties timely filed proposed recommended o rders, which have

been duly considered by the undersigned in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to

Florida Statute s (2011 ) , and all references to rules are to the

version thereof in effect when the conduct described below

occurred.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. At all times material hereto, the School Board has been

the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and

supe rvise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. New

River is a public school in Broward County, Florida.

2. During the 2011 - 2012 school year, Respondent was

employed as a math teacher at New River pursuant to a

professional service contract. Prior to the 2011 - 2012 school

year, Respondent was assigned to teach math at McArthur High

School (McArthur).

3. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since

2006. Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations

for each school year of her employment prior to the 2011 - 2012

school year.

4. During the 2011 - 2012 school year, Melinda Wessinger was

the principal of New River , and Taina Sierra was an assistant

principal. Ms. Sierra's administrative responsibilities included

oversight of the m ath department. The 2011 - 2012 school year was

Ms. Wessinger's first year at New River. Ms. Sierra has been at

New River for six school years.

CASE 12 - 2570TTS

5. For the 2011 - 2012 school year, August 22, 2011, was the

first day of school for students. T eachers were required to

report to work on August 15, 2011, for a week of preplanning.

During the preplanning week, teachers attended faculty meetings

and readied their classrooms for the coming school year.

6. On August 15, 2011, the work hours for th e preplanning

week and for the upcoming school year were discussed at a faculty

meeting. Also discussed was the sign - in and sign - out

requirements for the preplanning week. Teachers were required to

sign - in when they arrived at school and sign - out when th ey left

the facility for any reason.

7. On August 16, 2011, Respondent asked for and received

permission from Ms. Sierra to leave New River so she could go to

McArthur to retrieve certain materials she had left at her former

school. Respondent did not follow the sign - out procedure when

she left New River.

8. On either August 16 or 17, 2011, Respondent again asked

for , and received , permission from Ms. Sierra to leave New River

so she could go to McArthur to retrieve other materials.

Respondent did not follow the sign - out procedure when she left

New River.

9. One day during the preplanning week, Respondent was

tardy arriving to school.

10. On August 19, 2011, the last day of preplanning,

Ms. Sierra had a conference with Respondent during which

Ms. S ierra told Respondent to adhere to the sign - in and sign - out

procedures and to arrive at work on time. Ms. Sierra did not

consider that conference to be disciplinary. After this

conference , Respondent knew, or should have known, New River's

leave policies and its sign - out policy. Respondent had ready

access to the faculty handbook through a link on the CAB

(Communication Across Broward) system.

11. When school started on August 22, 2011, teachers did

not have to sign - in when they arrived at school. Ho wever, they

were required to sign - out if they left school early. The New

River faculty handbook contained the following as to signing out

before the end of the school day:

All personnel must get permission from the

grade level assistant principal before

l eaving campus for any reason. This includes

school related in - service , county meetings,

school visits, etc. To leave campus for any

personal reason, permission must be obtained

from an assistant principal in advance.

An emergency sign in/out sheet wil l be

available at Office Manager's desk.

If you are leaving during the day for

personal reasons/doctor's appointments, it is

your responsibility to obtain coverage for

your classes. Please notify your

administrator in the front office, via CBA,

the teach er(s) who will cover your classes.

The time you take off will be deducted from

your accumulated personal sick or personal

leave time.

12. On September 16, 2011, Ms. Sierra met with Respondent

to discuss complaints from parents and students. Ms. Sierra

directed Respondent to cease and desist any inappropriate

behavior toward students as a violation of the code of ethics and

that she was to treat students with respect at all times.

13. On October 28, 2011, Ms. Sierra had a pre - disciplinary

conference wit h Respondent based on Respondent's continued

failure to follow directives, including directives to comply with

all processes and procedures regarding class coverage, absences,

and embarrassing and/or disparaging students. As a result of

that meeting, Ms. Sierra recommended that Respondent be suspended

for one day without pay. That recommendation was approved by the

School Board on December 6, 2011. Respondent served that one - day

suspension without requesting a formal administrative hearing to

challenge t hat action.

14. Article 23 of the CBA pertains to Ð Leaves, Ñ including

sick leave and personal leave. Section A.2 of Article 23

provides that employees shall be granted up to six days each

school year for personal reasons. That provision also provides

th at personal reasons leave shall not be granted on the day

preceding or following a holiday.

15. On November 30, 2011, Respondent put in for personal

leave beginning on December 14 through 16, 2011. These dates

immediately preceded a school holiday (sch ool winter break was

December 19 through 30).

16. Ms . Sierra and M s. Wessinger explained the CBA

provision to Respondent and told her that she could not have

personal leave. Respondent then explained that she was having a

medical procedure performed. 1 / They told her to change her leave

from personal leave to medical leave. Ms. Sierra and

Ms. Wessinger also told her that they needed a doctor's note

excusing the absence. There was no particular form required for

the doctor's note.

17. On January 3, 2012, Ms. Sierra sent a follow - up email

to Respondent informing her that she had not changed the leave

request from personal leave to sick leave as she had been

directed. Respondent responded that she had changed the leave

request and stated that the chan ge could be verified through the

School Board's Ð smartfind Ñ computer program. Respondent's

representation to Ms. Sierra was false. Respondent had not

changed her leave request. 2 /

18. In addition to her plan ned absences from December 14

through 16, 201 1, Respondent called in sick on December 12

and 13, 2011. 3 / On these two days, Respondent called into the

smartfind system at 8:00 a.m. and 8:21 a.m., respectively.

Despite having been repeatedly told to comply with policies and

procedures relating to a bsences, these calls were not in

compliance with New River's faculty handbook. A teacher who

called in sick after 6:00 a.m. was required to call the

substitute coordinator's (Nicole Armstrong) direct line, which

gives a caller her voicemail should the coo rdinator not be at the

school or at her desk. Respondent's failure to comply with the

call - in procedure resulted in Ms. Armstrong Ós having to scramble

with very little time to find coverage for Respondent's classes

on December 12 and 13, 2011.

19. Teac hers at New River are required to leave emergency

lesson plans with Ms. Armstrong in case of unplanned absences.

Respondent had provided emergency plans earlier in the year, but

as of December 12 and 13, 2011, those emergency plans had been

used and not r eplaced. Consequently, there were no emergency

plans for December 12 and 13. Moreover, Respondent did not

comply with the procedures for leaving lesson plans for planned

absences for her absences on December 14 through 16.

20. Prior to January 5, 2012 , Respondent had brought in two

notes addressing he r need to be absent December 12 - 16, 2011, for

medical reasons. Both notes were vague. On January 5,

Ms. Wessinger and Ms. Sierrra met with Respondent to discuss with

her the need for a clear doctor's no te. During this meeting,

they repeated that Respondent was to follow all policies,

procedures, and directives given by the New River administration.

21. Later that day, Respondent left New River before the

end of the school day without following the si gn - out policy.

Respondent left early to get an acceptable note from her doctor,

which she brought in the next day. Notwithstanding her need to

obtain a doctor's note, Respondent failed to comply with the

directives given her by Ms. Wessinger and Ms. Sier ra earlier that

day.

22. Thereafter, Ms. Sierra recommended that Respondent be

suspended without pay for three days for gross insubordination.

That recommendation underpins Case No. 12 - 2570TTS.

CASE 12 - 4137TTS

23. On January 23, 2012, Respondent confi scated a cell

phone from N.D., a male student, during her fifth - period class.

Respondent placed the cell phone in her desk drawer with the

intention of turning the cell phone in to the office after class.

At the end of that class, N.D. removed the cell p hone from

RespondentÓs desk without permission and reported to his

sixth - period language arts class taught by Tommy Moore.

24. After the start of sixth period, Respondent realized

that the cell phone had been removed from her desk drawer.

Respondent w ent to Mr. MooreÓs class. There is a conflict in the

evidence as to what occurred next. The greater weight of the

credible evidence established that Respondent knocked on the door

to Mr. MooreÓs classroom. Mr. Moore opened the door for

Respondent. Resp ondent entered the classroom where she remained

by the doorway. Respondent tried to get N.D. to come to her, but

he refused to do so. Respondent asked N.D. in a loud voice to

give her the cell phone. A loud argument broke out between

Respondent and N.D. Another male student joined in the argument.

Respondent and the students engaged in name calling with the

terms Ð bitch Ñ and Ð bum Ñ being used. Petitioner failed to

establish that Respondent used either term. Respondent retrieved

the cell phone and left Mr. MooreÓs classroom. The argument

lasted at least ten minutes and completely disrupted Mr. MooreÓs

class. Mr. Moore was unable to regain control of his class and

was unable to complete the lesson he had started before

Respondent came to his classroom.

25. Mr. Moore did not try to stop the argument between

Respondent and the two students. N.D. did not appear to be

embarrassed or upset because of the argument he had with

Respondent. None of the students appeared to be frightened or

upset during the ar gument.

26. After leaving Mr. MooreÓs class, Respondent went to a

math department meeti ng chaired by Ms. Stephanie Tegreeny.

Ms. Tegreeny had completed her presentation to the other math

teachers by the time Respondent arrived. Ms. Tegreeny repeated

her presentation for Respondent. After that meeting, Respondent

took N.D.Ós cell phone to the office.

27. Prior to the start of school on the morning of

January 24, 2012, Robin Terrill, a school volunteer, and Mr.

Moore were in the media center maki ng copies. Respondent came

into the media center and in a loud, rude, and vulgar fashion

criticized the school administration. Respondent described the

school administration in profane terms, including the Ð f Ñ word.

There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether students

overheard RespondentÓs rant. The greater weight of the credible

evidence established that students were present in an area that

they could have overheard Respondent.

28. Later in the morning of January 24, 2012, Mr. Moore

contact ed Ms. Sierra to inform her of RespondentÓs conduct in his

classroom the day before. Later that day Ms. Sierra asked

Respondent about her conduct in Mr. MooreÓs classroom, and she

discussed with Respondent what had been reported to her.

29. Prior to the start of school on January 25, 2012,

Mr. Moore was walking down the stairs from his classroom to the

main level with a student he had been tutoring. Respondent

confronted Mr. Moore about his report to the administration of

the incident in his classroom o n January 23. This confrontation

was clearly unwelcomed by Mr. Moore, who testified that he felt

Ð agitated, Ñ Ð stressed, Ñ and Ð uncomfortable. Ñ

30. After that meeting on the stairs, Respondent stopped

Mr. Moore again to ask what he knew about the adminis trationÓs

investigation into the incident in his classroom. Mr. Moore

thereafter altered his schedule to avoid Respondent.

31. The School Board and the teacherÓs union have entered

into a CBA applicable to this proceeding. Section s A.1.a. and

A.1.b of Article 18 of the CBA provides for progressive

discipline, in part, as follows:

a. Progressive Discipline: Any discipline

of an employee sh all be for jus t cause. The

parties agree that the concept of just cause

embodies the principles of progressive

di scipline under the circumstances.

b. Disciplinary procedures may include but

are not limited to: verbal/written reprimand,

suspens ion, demotion and termination. . . .

32. The School BoardÓs Policy 4.9 provides certain

Ð Disciplinary Guidelines Ñ and is part of the record of t his

proceeding as RespondentÓs E xhibit 2. Those guidelines are

hereby incorporated in this Recommended Order by reference.

33. The School BoardÓs Policy 5.9 prohibits bullying, which

is defined by the policy as follows:

Ð Bullying Ñ means systematically and

chronically inflicting physical hurt or

psychological distress on one or more

students or employees. It is further defined

as: unwanted purposeful written, verbal,

nonverbal, or physical behavior, including

but not limited to any threatening,

insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, by an

adult or student, that has the potential to

create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive

educational environment or cause long term

damage; cause discomfort or humiliation; or

unreasonably interfere w ith the individualÓs

school performance or participation, is

carried out repeatedly and is often

characterized by an imbalance of power.

Bullying may involve, but is not limited to:

1. unwanted teasing

2. threatening

3. intimidating

4. stalking

5. c yberstalking

6. cyberbullying

7. physical violence

8. theft

9. sexual, religious, or racial harassment

10. public humiliation

11. destruction of school or personal

property

12. social exclusion, including incitement

and/or coercion

13. rumor or spr eading of falsehoods

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and

the parties to this case pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2012).

35. Because the School Board seeks to terminate

Respondent's e mployment, which does not involve the loss of a

license or certification, the School Board has the burden of

proving the allegations in its administrative c omplaint by a

preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to the more stringent

standard of clear and convincing evidence. See McNeill v.

Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen

v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA

1990); Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1990).

36. The prepond erance of the evidence standard requires

proof by Ð the greater weight of the evidence, Ñ Black's Law

Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that Ð more likely

than not Ñ tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v.

Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 ( Fla. 2000)(relying on American

Tobacco Co. v. State , 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)

quoting Bourjaily v. United States , 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)).

37. This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate

final agency action. See Hamilton Cnty Bd. of Cnty . Comm'rs v.

Dep't Envtl. Reg. , 587 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) , and

section 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.

38. Section 1012.33(1)(a) , Florida Statutes, sets forth

Ð just cause Ñ for disciplining Respondent's employment, which

includes Ð immorality, Ñ Ð misconduct in office, Ñ and Ð gross

insubordination, Ñ as those terms are defined by rule of the State

Board of Education. The definitions utilized below are the

definitions that were in effect at the time of the conduct

described in this Recommended Ord er. The definitions of

Ð misconduct in office Ñ and Ð gross insubordination Ñ have been

amended. The definitions of Ð immorality, Ñ Ð misconduct in

office, Ñ and Ð gross insubordina tion Ñ have been transferred to

Florida Administrative Code R ule 6A - 5.056.

THE A LLEGED VIOLATION: CASE 12 - 2570TTS

GROSS INSUBORDINATION

39. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 4.009(4) defined

Ð gross insubordination Ñ to mean Ð a consistent or continuing

intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature,

and given by a nd with proper authority. Ñ

40. The School Board proved that Respondent was guilty of

gross insubordination by repeatedly failing to follow applicable

polices pertaining to absences from school after being

specifically instructed to adhere to those polic ies by her

principal and assistant principal.

THE ALLEGED VIOLALTIONS: CASE 12 - 4137TTS

41. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent

was guilty of:

(Count I) Immorality,

(Count II) Misconduct in Office, and

(Count III) Bullying

IMMO RALITY

42. Rule 6B - 4.009(2) defined the term Ð immorality Ñ as

follows:

(2) Immorality is defined as conduct that is

inconsistent with the standards of public

conscience and good morals. It is conduct

sufficiently notorious to bring the

individual concer ned or the education

profession into public disgrace or disrespect

and impair the individual's service in the

community.

43. While RespondentÓs use of the Ð f Ñ word should be

considered to be inconsistent with the standards of public

conscience and good morals, that use is not sufficiently

notorious to bring Respondent or the education profession into

public disgrace or disrespect. There was no evidence that

RespondentÓs service in the community has been impaired. Her

other conduct did not rise to the l evel of immorality.

Consequently, the undersigned has concluded that Respondent is

not guilty of immorality as alleged in Count I of the

Administrative Complaint.

MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE

44. Rule 6B - 4.009(3) defined the term Ð misconduct in

office Ñ as fo llows:

(3) Misconduct in office is defined as

a violation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession as adopted in

Rule 6B - 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles

of Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in

Rule 6B - 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious

as to impair the individual's effectiveness

in the school system.

45. The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in

Florida, now found at rule 6A - 10.080, provides as follows:

(1) The educator values the worth an d

dignity of every person, the pursuit of

truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of

knowledge, and the nurture of democratic

citizenship. Essential to the achievement of

these standards are the freedom to learn and

to teach and the guarantee of equal

opportunity for all.

(2) The educator's primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the student's

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best prof essional judgment

and integrity.

(3) Aware of the importance of maintaining

the respect and confidence of one's

colleagues, students, parents, and other

members of the community, the educator

strives to achieve and sustain the highest

degree of ethical conduct.

46. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida, now found at rule 6A - 10.081,

provide, in relevant part, as follows:

(2) Violation of any of these principles

shall subject the individual to revocation or

sus pension of the individual educator's

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

(3) Obligation to the student requires

that the individual:

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to

protect the student from conditions harmful

to learning and /or to the student's physical

health and/or safety.

* * *

(e) Shall not intentionally expose a

student to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the individual:

* * *

(d) Shall not engage in harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably

interferes with an individualÓs performance

of professional or work responsibilities or

with the orderly processes of education or

which creates a hostile, intimidating,

abusive, offensive, or oppressive

environment; and, further, shall make

reasonable effort to assure that each

individual is protected from such harassment

or discrimination.

47 . The School Board proved that Respondent engaged in

Ð misconduct Ñ within the meaning o f former rule 6B - 4.009(3) by

interrupting Mr. MooreÓs class, by confronting N.D. in open

class, by confronting Mr. Moore after he reported RespondentÓs

conduct to the administration, and by using profane language to

describe the school administration.

48 . Once N.D. refused to come to Respondent, Respondent

should have left Mr. MooreÓs classroom and reported the incident

to an administrator. Respondent should not have disrupted Mr.

MooreÓs class by engaging in an argument with N.D. and the other

student.

49. The definition of Ð misconduct Ñ requires that the

conduct is so serious Ð as to impair the [Respondent's]

effectiveness in the school system. Ñ Impaired effectiveness in

the school system can be found based on the conduct alone if the

conduct is suffi ciently serious. See Purvis v. Marion C nty . Sch.

B d . , 766 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Respondent's conduct as

found in this Recommended Order is sufficient without other proof

to establish that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system

has been impaired.

BULLYING

5 0 . Respondent engaged in misconduct by confronting

Mr. Moore as she did, but she did not bully him as alleged in

Count III . The School BoardÓs definition of bullying includes

repeated behavior and an imbalance of power between the bully and

the victim. Respondent asked Mr. Moo re, who is her peer, once

what he told the administration about her conduct in his

classroom and, on a second occasion, what he knew about the

administrationÓs investigation. Those two incidents do not

const itute bullying.

PENALTY

51. As to Case 12 - 2570TTS, the School Board seeks to

suspend RespondentÓs employment without pay for a period of three

days. That action is reasonable and will be incorporated in the

recommendation that follows.

52. As to Case 12 - 4137TTS, the School Board seeks to

terminate RespondentÓs employment. That proposed discipline is

too harsh under the circumstances of this case. In reaching this

conclusion, the undersigned has considered the factors set forth

in the School BoardÓs Pol icy 4.9, including the severity of the

offense, the length of RespondentÓs employment, and her prior

evaluations.

RECOMMENDATION

The following recommendations are based on the foregoing

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L aw:

As to Case 12 - 2570TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School

Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting

the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L aw set forth in this

Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final

order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Sarena

Stewart for a period of three school days.

As to Case 12 - 4137TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School

Board of Broward County, Florida, en ter a final order adopting

the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L aw set forth in this

Recomme nded Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final

order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Sarena

Stewart for a period of 30 school days.

DONE AND ENTERED this 8 th day of August , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

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 8 th day of August , 2013 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / Respondent planned to undergo in vitro fertilization in the

Czech Republic during the winter break.

2 / Respondent testified at the formal hearing that she considered

attempting to become pregnant to be personal, as opposed to

medical. Be that as it may, Respondent failed to comply with

direct orders from her principal and assistant principal, and

wrote a false email in response to Ms. Sierra's email.

3 / The finding by the undersigned that Respondent failed to

comply with the policies as to unplanned absences should not be

construed to suggest that Respondent was abusing sick leave. The

undersigned accepts RespondentÓs testimony that she was sick on

Dec ember 12 and 13, 2011.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire

Paul Gibbs, Esquire

Law Offices of

Carmen Rodriguez, P.A.

Suite 411

15715 South Dixie Highway

Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157

Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire

Kelly and McKee, P.A.

Suite 301

1718 East Seventh Avenue

Post Office Box 75638

Tampa, Florida 33675 - 0638

Matthew Carson, General Counsel

Department of Education

Suite 1244

Turlington Building

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Robert Runcie, Superintendent

Br oward County School Board

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Pam Stewart

Interim Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Suite 1514

Turlington Building

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

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 thi s case.