18-001005 Okaloosa County School Board vs. Stephen Hall Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, November 9, 2018.

Summary: The School Board failed to prove just cause to support the termination of Respondent.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

OKALOOSA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 1005

STEPHEN HALL,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final hearing was conducted in this case on August 7

and 8, 2018, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, before James H.

Peterson, III, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire

Avery D. McKnight, Esquir e

Allen Norton & Blue, P.A.

906 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

For Respondent: Mark S. Levine, Esquire

H. B. Stivers, Esquire

Levine & Stivers, LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ST ATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether just cause exists to impose discipline on

RespondentÓs employment; and, if so, what is the appropriate

discipline.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated November 29, 2017, the Superintendent of

Schools for Okaloosa County notif ied Stephen Hall (ÐRespondentÑ)

of her recommendation to the Okaloosa County School Board that

Respondent's employment with the Okaloosa County School District

( Ð Petitioner, Ñ Ð School District, Ñ or Ð School Board Ñ ) be

terminated due to Respondent's gross ins ubordination, misconduct,

and harassment. At the School Board meeting held December 11,

2017, the Board voted to terminate Respondent's employment.

On December 18, 2017, Respondent timely filed a petition for

administrative hearing ( Ð Petition Ñ ), which wa s subsequently

transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings ( Ð DOAH Ñ )

for the assignment of an administrative law judge.

The administrative hearing was initially set for May 15

and 16, 2018, but was continued and rescheduled for August 7

and 8, 2 018, and thereafter convened as scheduled. At the

hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of seven

witnesses: Mrs. A licia Williams ; Respondent; Dr. Bill Smith;

Mr. Andersyn Mims; Mrs. Elizabeth ÐLizÑ Sanders; Mr. Andy Snaith;

and Mr. Ronald Pa nucci. Respondent presented the testimony of

Mr. Alonzo Travis and testified on his own behalf. The parties

offered Joint Exhibits 1 through 3, which were received into

evidence. Petitioner offered PetitionerÓs Exhibits P - 1 through

P - 17, each of which w as received into evidence, except for

PetitionerÓs P - 15. Respondent offered RespondentÓs eight

exhibits received into evidence as RespondentÓs Exhibits R - 1

through R - 8.

The proceedings were recorded and a transcript was ordered.

The parties were given 30 days from the filing of the transcript

within which to file their proposed recommended orders (ÐPROsÑ).

The Transcript, consisting of three volumes, was filed on

August 24, 2018. An unopposed request for an extension of time

was filed and granted, allow ing the parties to submit their PROs

on September 28, 2018. The parties timely filed their respective

PROs, both of which have been considered in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. At all times material to this case, Responden t was a

School Board employee. Respondent was employed as a custodian at

Choctawhatchee High School (ÐChoctawÑ) when he was terminated in

2017. As a custodial employee, Respondent was subject to the

Collective Bargaining A greement entered into between th e School

Board and the Okaloosa County Education Association.

2. When he was terminated, Respondent had been employed by

the School Board for approximately 24 to 26 years. Respondent

was employed as a custodian at Choctaw beginning in 2015. Prior

to th at, Respondent was employed by the School Board as lead

custodian at Choice School (ÐChoiceÑ). Before that, at least

five years before his employment at Choctaw, Respondent was

employed by the School Board as a pre - K liaison at Edwins

Elementary (ÐEdwinsÑ ). In addition, Respondent had been employed

by the School Board over the years as a bus driver and in other

custodial positions.

3. The School Board's termination of Respondent's

employment was based largely upon a formal equity complaint 1/

( Ð Formal C omplaint Ñ ) submitted on October 5, 2017, by

Mrs. Williams, a volunteer at Choctaw, alleging harassment by

Respondent with an attached email addressing her concerns

regarding contacts by Respondent and a history of alleged

harassment by Respondent.

4. Th e email attached to Mrs. Williams' Formal Complaint is

dated October 3, 2017, and states:

Harassment has gone back to Edwins Elementary

nearly 8 years ago. I was a parent as well

as a PTO [parent teacher organization]

Member/President for a few years at E dwins

Elementary. There were constant

unprofessional/vulgar comments made by Steve

Hall in reference to my body and parts of my

body, the way my clothing may fit certain

areas of my body or his requesting to take

photos of me. I think on occasion he may

have taken some photos because as I would

turn around and his phone was lifted in my

direction to do so. On countless occasions

employees would stand with me to hinder him

hanging around and commenting. This

frequently occurred during his employment at

E dwins Elementary School. On one occasion my

young high school age daughter, at the time,

was at Edwins Elementary School with me

during school hours. I was introducing my

daughter to some people and Steve walked up

so not to be rude I introduced her to h im as

well. Steve Hall's comment was not "hi" or

"how are you?" it was "move over mom . . .!"

As her moth er I was disgusted! I told

Mr. Farley but my daughter did not want to

get into it or write a statement. I

respected her wishes and just limited her

presence on that campus. This entire time I

have also been volunteering at Choctawhatchee

High School. I found out that he was moved

from Edwins to another school. I am still a

full - time volunteer at CHS [Choctaw] and one

day Steve Hall showed up at Ch octaw's front

desk. Knowing what actions I have seen from

him I was extremely concerned finding out

Steve is now an employee at Choctawhatchee

High School. Approaching me at the front

desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve

Hall. I called and met with Mr. Farley to

work out a solution hoping this could be

resolved professionally. The rule was Steve

was not to be anywhere within the front

office area to include the mail room. I have

had to call Mr. Farley on multiple occasions

because he continued to approach me in the

front office. Currently he continues to try

to communicate inappropriately with me at the

football games or on campus, school events.

Steve sits in the stands eating concession

food and watching the football games for the

most of t he game. Steve tries to initiate

conversation through my son who is special

needs and only understands he is suppose to

be nice to everyone. Not wanting/needing to

exp lain this situation to my son. [sic] My

son responds when spoken to by Steve because

S teve is an adult and my son knows I require

respect from him no matter who speaks to him.

This makes football games and school events

difficult every season with this year being

no different! At the CHS vs. Tate game I was

thankful there was a fence betw een the

sections we were sitting in, so that he could

not get closer without going all the way down

and back up. I just turned away with no

response. It is frustrating feeling like I

have to hide to avoid Steve! This school

year Steve has come to the fr ont office area

3 times within the first month and a half of

school. Each time I reported it and Steve

was told to stay away from the front office.

On one of the occasions I was in the back, in

the mail room. Someone came to let me know

Steve was up fro nt looking for me. I tried

to go out the back of the mailroom door to

Mr. Snaith's office to get assistance and

Steve walked in to confront me. The

confrontation was extremely uncomfortable to

say the least. About that time Mr. Snaith

walked in and witn essed most of the

confrontation escorting me away from Steve

and we called Mr. Farley. Again! Steve was

talked to about not coming to the front

office for any reason. He has Ms. Liz's

phone number (his supervisor) if he needs

her. He has since come bac k to the front

office again! He was told again not to come

to the front office at all for any reason and

it was discussed by Mr. Farley he needed to

be more aware of his actions and the way they

may be perceived. I am also the parent in

charge of "Parent s for Prior." After this

years current situations, Steve was spoken to

by Mr. Bill Smith. Steve Hall approached me

at the Pryor Middle School football game held

at Choctaw stadium. I was trying to work a

table at the game, soon after the most recent

iss ue. Steve approached my son first then

walked closer to me requesting to speak to me

for a "hot minute" in the alley between the

touchdown shack and stadium. I'm sure it

would be on the stadium cameras as stated in

my statement to Bill Smith. I was unab le to

leave due to my possession of money and

tickets. I glared at Steve and he stated I

guess I should just keep walking. I nodded

"yes"! This is only the most prominent on

campus situations. I called Bill Smith and

explained I should tell Steve to st ay away.

I feel we are past this due to this being

years in the making. This has already been

addressed and discussed with Steve on

multiple occasions. Bill Smith s tated I

needed to send him an e mail statement and

apologized he had not yet gotten with

M r. Chapman, from a week before, because of

the hurricane. This was my second statement

to Bill Smith this school year as well as one

meeting with him. I enjoy volunteering my

time at Choctawhatchee High School. Within a

few years I'll be a Choctaw paren t, unless I

am required to move my son to another high

school because of this. This is not what I

want to do as a parent or volunteer. I do

not feel it is fair I may need to remove

myself and choose another high school for my

son to attend because of an employee's

unprofessional/vulgar behavior. Steve Hall

repeatedly drives by my home. The latest

time that I know of was within a week or so

before school started this year 2017 - 2018.

I was on the phone walking out of my home, I

looked up and saw Steve si tting out in front

of my home rolling down his window motioning

me to come talk to him. I turned to return

inside to get my husband, who is law

enforcement, but Steve drove off in his green

avalanche. I do not live on a main road nor

have I given him my address. My street is

not a road someone would just drive by on.

If this continues I will file a restraining

order. If there are any questions or

concerns please do not hesitate to contact

me.

5. Mrs. WilliamsÓ Formal Complaint was assigned to Gary M.

Marsh, i nvestigator, Escambia County School District, on

October 11, 2017, for investigation. Mr. Marsh conducted his

investigation and submitted his investigative report dated

October 31, 2017, to the School Board's superintendent. The

investigative report was hand - delivered by Mr. Marsh and received

by the superintendent on November 3, 2017.

6. In a letter dated November 14, 2017, the School Board's

assistant superintendent of human and resources advised

Respondent that she was recommending to the superintendent that

Respondent be suspended with pay , effective immediately , and

further that his employment with Petitioner be terminated at the

December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The letter states:

Mr. Hall,

An investigation has now been complete d

regarding the Formal Equity Complaint made

against you on/or about October 5, 2017. A

copy of the investigative report is attached

for your information and review. This is the

second formal investigation of an equity

complaint against you since 2014. Based upon

a culmination or multiple instances of

harassment, misconduct in the workplace or

gross insubordination, over the course of the

last three years, I am recommending that the

Superintendent suspend you with pay effective

immediately and further th at your employment

with the School District be terminated at the

December 11, 2017, School Board meeting.

The charges against you are based upon the

finding of illicit material in your desk at

Edwins Elementary School and repeated

inappropriate comments l eading to coworkers

feeling harassed which led to your transfer

in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to

Okaloosa Technical College (OTC); in late

2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of

unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual

harassment on your part as confirmed in a

formal investigation which led to your

demotion and transfer from a lead custodian

to a custodian at Choctaw High School (CHS).

Additionally, while at CHS, new allegations

of harassment have been made against you.

Due to these all egations you were directed on

multiple occasions by both your supervisor

and a district administrator not to enter the

CHS front office or mail room. As a result

of a recent investigation it has been

determined that you have continued to enter

the school front office area in direct

insubordination of your supervisor and a

district administrator. Further, after

review of the investigative report there is

sufficient evidence to believe that

harassment of a school volunteer did occur.

Your conduct is consid ered to be gross

insubordination, misconduct in office and

harassment in direct violation of the

following School Board policies:

• School Board Policy 07 - 03 Employment

Conditions for Education Support

Personnel

• School Board Policy 06 - 27 Equity Policy:

Har assment on the Basis of Race, Color,

National or Ethnic Origin, Sex, Age,

Religious Beliefs, Marital Status,

Pregnancy or Disabilty

In accordance with both School Board policy

06 - 28 E(2) and Section K(a) of the OCESPA

Master Contract you may file a writte n appeal

to the Superintendent within ten (10)

calendar days of receipt of the enclosed

investigative report and this recommendation.

7. In a letter dated November 29, 2017, the assistant

superintendent of human resources requested that the

superintende nt recommend to the School Board that Respondent be

terminated for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment.

8. The Superintendent notified Respondent in a letter dated

November 29, 2017, that she would recommend his termination from

employment a t the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting for

gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. At its

December 11, 2017, meeting, the School Board approved the

superintendentÓs recommendation , and Respondent was terminated

from his custodian positio n.

9. Neither Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson nor Assistant

Superintendent Stacie Smith testified at the hearing.

10. According to the November 14, 2017, letter from the

assistant superintendent, quoted above, the recommendation for

Respondent's termin ation is "[b]ased upon a culmination of

multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or

gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years ."

[emphasis added]. The three allegations that form the basis of

the recommended disci pline against Respondent are analyzed below

under headings derived from the November 14, 2017, letter as

follows: 1) " finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins

Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to

coworkers feeling har assed which led to your transfer in 2014

from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College

(OTC)"; 2) "in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of

unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your

part as confirmed in a fo rmal investigation which led to your

demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at

Choctaw High School"; and 3) "it has been determined that you

have continued to enter the school front office area in direct

insubordination of your supervis or and a district administrator.

Further, after review of the investigative report there is

sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school

volunteer did occur."

I. ILLICIT MATERIAL IN RESPONDENT'S DESK AT EDWINS AND

REPEATED INAPPROPRIATE COM MENTS TO COWORKERS LEADING TO A

TRANSFER

11. At the hearing, it was revealed that Respondent's

employment at Edwins predated his employment at Choice.

Respondent was employed at Choice during the 2013 - 2014 school

year. 2/ Therefore, the alleged illicit material and

inappropriate comments that allegedly occurred at Edwins could

not have taken place "over the course of the last three years , "

as alleged in the November 14, 2017, letter.

12. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the alleged

ÐEdwins eventsÑ could have taken place over the past three years

as alleged, the School Board presented no testimony or

documentary evidence to prove the underlying fact that

Respondent had Ðillicit materialÑ in his desk while employed at

Edwins. In fact, there was no t estimony at all concerning this

alleged prior discipline.

13. Mrs. WilliamsÓ email attached to her Formal Complaint

states that the alleged harassment "has gone back to Edwins

Elementary nearly 8 years ago." In fact, Mrs. Williams first

met Respondent at least seven years before she filed her Formal

Complaint against Respondent referenced in this case. When they

first met, Respondent worked with the in - school suspension and

student training programs at Edwins and her son attended Edwins.

Mrs. Williams w as a volunteer with the parent - teacher

organization. Her duties as a volunteer included fundraising.

14. Mrs. Williams described her initial relationship with

Respondent as a casual friendship. Mrs. Williams kept her

parent - teacher organization material s in his office and would

often call him to gain access to those materials. A self -

described Ðhugger,Ñ while at Edwins, Mrs. Williams used to

initiate hugs with Respondent and others.

15. Although not a part of the allegations against

Respondent, the e vidence shows that, on one occasion, while at

Edwins, Respondent asked Ms. Williams Ðwas [she] ever into

blacks." Mrs. Williams responded, ÐNoÑ and that she was

married. Respondent asked if she knew anybody who was into

blacks because he had a friend who was into Ðwhite chicks.Ñ

Mrs. Williams told him that she knew a secretary at Choct aw who

dated Ðblack guys.Ñ There is no indication that Mrs. Williams

considered this conversation with Respondent as offensive or

harassment.

16. Mrs. W illiamsÓ email attached to her F ormal C omplaint

alleges that, while at Edwins, Respondent made inappropriate

comments to her about her body, parts of her body, the way her

clothes fit and asked to photograph parts of her body.

Mrs. Williams testified that she was dismay ed by his comments

but never told Respondent to stop or leave her alone.

17. Regarding RespondentÓs alleged request to photograph

her, Mrs. Williams testified that he made the request only once;

she shook her hea d "N o," but did not verbalize any protests and

walked away.

18. Mrs. Williams also alleges that while working at

Edwins, Respondent made her aware that he was interested in her

by his eye gestures and other nonverbal cues, as well as

sometimes saying ÐwhoaÑ when he walked by her. Respondent

denie s making gestures or statements indicating that he was

sexually interested in Mrs. Williams. There is no indication

that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent to stop his alleged

behavior or that she reported the incidents at the time.

19. Mrs. Williams doe s not recall whether she reported

RespondentÓs alleged comments or request to photograph her to

anyone at the time. Respondent denies the allegations. No

witnesses were called to corroborate Mrs. Williams' allegations ,

and Mrs. Williams testified that sh e could not ÐattestÑ to

anyone who could corroborate her allegations.

20. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams explained the

reference in her email attached to her Formal Complaint about

the occasion at Edwins when Respondent allegedly told her to

Ðmove over m omÑ after she had introduced her daughter. She

testified that RespondentÓs statement was very offensive and

sexual in nature because she believed that Respondent was saying

that he liked her but now that he saw her daughter Ð[he was]

going to go after [he r] daughter.Ñ Mrs. Williams further

testified that she believed that the incident was a reportable

offense because her daughter was a minor at the time, but that

her daughter did not want to report and she did not file a

formal complaint.

21. Mrs. Willi ams testified that that Respondent had

referred to her by nicknames such as Ðbaby,Ñ Ðbaby girlÑ and

Ðsweetie,Ñ which she found unprofessional and made her feel

uncomfortable. While there is evidence that Respondent has used

the term Ðbaby girlÑ in his ver nacular, he explained that he

used the term as just another way for saying Ðhow you doing.Ñ

Respondent explained in his testimony that it was just

Ð[a]nother saying for saying hey, shortie, like they say. So

you say, hey, baby girl, how are you doing to day?Ñ

22. The context of Mrs. Williams' testimony on this point

suggests that Respondent used the nicknames for Mrs. Williams

while they were both at Edwins. There is no evidence, however,

that Mrs. Williams reported these instances at the time. There

is also no evidence that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent not

to call her nicknames, or that she reported RespondentÓs use of

nicknames. Remarkably, Mrs. Williams Ó Formal C omplaint does not

even mention that Respondent called her by nicknames.

23. De spite the allegations against him, there is no

evidence that while at Edwins, or at any other time, Respondent

asked Mrs. Williams for a date, out for drinks, suggested that

they have sex, touched her inappropriately, talked to her on the

phone outside of school, or i nterfered with Mrs. WilliamsÓ

ability to perform her volunteer duties or responsibilities.

24. The allegations against Respondent , while he was at

Edwins , do not fall within the Ðcourse of the last three yearsÑ

as alleged in the charging docum ent (the November 14, 2017,

letter) and are , therefore , inconsistent with the reasons

espoused by the School Board for the discipline sought in this

case.

25. Moreover, considering the fact that Mrs. WilliamsÓ

allegations against Respondent while he was a t Edwins were not

timely reported, that her allegations were uncorroborated, drew

no protest from Mrs. Williams at the time, and were denied by

Respondent, it is found that the evidence is insufficient to

show that Respondent harassed Mrs. Williams, sexual ly or

otherwise, while at Edwins.

26. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing

was insufficient to prove that Respondent made Ðrepeated

inappropriate comments , Ñ which led to Ðcoworkers feeling

harassedÑ while he was at Edwins. The evidence al so failed to

show that Respondent was transferred because of those comments

or because illicit material was found in his desk.

II. LATE 2014 ALLEGATIONS OF UNWANTED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

CONSTITUTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT LEADING TO RESPONDENTÓS

DEMOTION AND TRA NSFER FROM LEAD CUSTODIAN TO A CUSTODIAN AT

CHOCTAW

27. This allegation, as set forth in the November 1, 2017,

letter from the assistant superintendent, refers to allegations

of sexual harassment that occurred in 2014 when Respondent was a

lead custodia n at OTC, which is in the same facility as Choice.

28. In 2014, Respondent began working at Choice as a lead

custodian. The allegations arising from RespondentÓs time at

Choice are not included within Mrs. WilliamsÓ Formal C omplaint.

29. The School Bo ard presented no testimony or competent

substantial evidence to prove the underlying facts that

Respondent committed Ðunwanted sexual behavior constituting

sexual harassmentÑ while at Choice.

30. Respondent testified concerning this alleged prior

discipli ne, acknowledging that he allowed a teacher at Choice to

listen to some rap music, that he used the term Ðbaby girl,Ñ and

that the School Board considered the use of the term Ðbaby girlÑ

a form of sexual harassment. Respondent denied, however, that he

eng aged in inappropriate conduct or sexual harassment.

31. Respondent testified that h e accepted a transfer as a

lead custodian at Choice to a Custodian II position at Choctaw.

He further testified that he was advised by the School Board that

he would be transferred back to a lead custodian when a position

became available.

32. The School Board presented its Exhibit P - 8a as evidence

of this alleged prior discipline, which was ultimately proffered

and ÐadmittedÑ as a proffered exhibit (Proffer P - 8a). Upon

reconsideration, while it lacks evidentiary value, Proffer P - 8a

is received into evidence.

33. Proffer P - 8a, entitled ÐConfidential Inquiry Summary,Ñ

is an investigative report purportedly authored by Arden E.

Farley, as a contract investigator for t he School Board.

34. Proffer P - 8a does not prove the underlying facts and

does not constitute competent evidence in support of the

discipline sought against Respondent in this case.

35. No witnesses were called to prove the underlying

discipline related to RespondentÓs alleged demotion.

36. Furthermore, Proffer P - 8a is hearsay and does not

corroborate direct testimony or any other competent evidence.

37. Because Proffer P - 8a references RespondentÓs alleged

use of the term Ðbaby - girl,Ñ the School Board , through counsel,

argued that Proffer P - 8a is evidence that Respondent was aware

that the use of the term Ðbaby - girl,Ñ or similar terms, was

improper and could subject him to discipline. This conclusion is

contrary to the evidence presented at the hearin g . Although

Mrs. Williams testified that Mr. Hall used the term during their

time at Edwins, Respondent and Mrs. Williams were at Edwins prior

to RespondentÓs time at Choice. Thus, Proffer P - 8a could not

have put Respondent on notice that it was inapprop riate for him

to refer to Mrs. Williams as Ðbaby - girlÑ while at Edwins. There

is otherwise no competent evidence that Respondent referred to

Mrs. Williams, or any other complainant, as Ðbaby - girlÑ or any

other nickname while at Choctaw.

III. ALLEGED H ARASSMENT OF A SCHOOL VOLUNTEER AND FAILURE

TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES NOT TO ENTER THE SCHOOL FRONT OFFICE AT

CHOCTAW

38. Harassment is governed by the School BoardÓs equity

policy. Respondent acknowledged that he received a copy of the

then existing Equity Policy in 2009. No evidence was presented

as to what the Equity Policy consisted of in 2009. The Equity

Policies presented at the final hearing reveal that two of the

policies were adopted in 2015 and a third Equity Policy was

adopted at the D ecember 11, 2017, School Board m eeting; the same

School Board meeting where the superintendentÓs recommendation to

terminate Respondent was considered and approved.

39. The alleged harassment of a school volunteer while at

Choctaw appears to include encounters at f ootball games, in the

front office, and one time at Mrs. WilliamsÓ home.

Football Games

40. The testimony at hearing revealed that Mrs. Williams

was complaining about two encounters with Respondent at football

games.

41. RespondentÓs duties at Choctaw required him to be

present at football games.

42. During the first encounter, Mrs. Williams and her son

were in the stands watching a Choctaw football game. There is a

fence that divides the stands. Respondent was on one side of the

fence and he attemp ted to initiate a conversation with

Mrs. Williams and her son. Respondent was saying Ðhello.Ñ

Mrs. Williams ignored Respondent and no conversation was

undertaken.

43. The second encounter occurred prior to a Pryor Middle

School football game, which was taking place at Choctaw.

Mrs. Williams, accompanied by her son, was setting up a parent -

teacher organization table , and Respondent approached her and her

son and initiated a conversation with her son. Mr. Hall knows

Mrs. WilliamsÓ son from his time at Ed wins.

44. Towards the end of the brief conversation, Respondent

asked Mrs. Williams if he could speak with her for a Ðhot

minute.Ñ Mrs. Williams glared at him and then said Ðno , Ñ and

Respondent went about his way.

45. Respondent presented credible t estimony that a Ðhot

minuteÑ is slang for Ða secondÑ or Ðjust for a minute.Ñ There

was no other evidence concerning the term Ðhot minute.Ñ

Front Office

46. The email attached to Mrs. WilliamsÓ Formal Complaint

states that RespondentÓs Ðapproaching me at the front desk at

Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall.Ñ The email further

states that Mr. Hall was in the front office three times during

the first month and a half of the 2017 - 2018 school year.

47. In a separate email, Mrs. Williams documented an

ÐencounterÑ that occurred on September 1, 2017. She does not

indicate that Respondent had any contact with her, just that he

was in the front office. In fact, on that occasion, Mrs.

Williams turned her back to Respondent and Ms. Gloria Scaife, who

was working in the front office, spoke with him.

48. In an email, dated September 7, 2017, Ms. Scaife states

that Respondent was in the office and asked her if she had seen

Ms. Liz (who is the lead custodian) . Respondent credibly

explained that, on that occ asion, he went to the front office to

find his supervisor to obtain access to supplies.

49. A second encounter in the 2017 - 2018 school year

occurred in the mailroom. Mrs. Williams was in the mailroom when

Respondent entered the room. Mrs. Williams testi fied that

Respondent Ðcornered her in mailroom . . . that she couldnÓt get

around him . . . and that he was upset and very loud.Ñ She

further testified that she Ðcould not move without touching

[Respondent].Ñ

50. Mrs. WilliamsÓ testimony conflicts with the other

accounts of this encounter, which are more credible. Andy

Snaith, dean of students for Choctaw, testified that there were

other people in the mailroom and that he observed Ðwhat appeared

to be a conversation with [Respondent] and Mrs. Williams.

[Respondent's] back was to me. I believe he was doing the

talking . . . .Ñ When asked for more detail, Mr. Snaith stated:

Q: And with other people in the mailroom, was

there enough room, based on what you saw from

Mrs. Williams, to back away from Mr. H all?

A: Yeah. It wasn't that crowded.

Q: So there was plenty of room for her to

move around?

A: Yes.

Q: Any idea what they were talking about?

A: No.

Q: How would Mrs. Williams get out of the

mailroom, if she wanted to leave?

A: There's two ways, I believe where she was

standing, she could have gone to the left or

to the right. The left is where the door that

leads into the hallway, and then the other one

leads to the main office.

51. Consistent with the recollection of Mr. Snaith,

Respo ndent testified that upon being told by Mrs. Sanders that

Mrs. Williams was telling others that he was saying things to

Mrs. Williams, he went to the office to ask Mrs. Williams if this

was true. Respondent further testified:

I asked [Mrs. Williams], cal m and simple,

[Mrs. Williams], have I talked to you, have I

seen you? She said, no, I haven't seen you in

three, four months. I said, that's all I

wanted to know, because Liz is making a

comment that I have said something to you and

that was not true, an d I walked away.

52. It is unclear from the testimony as to exactly when

this conversation took place, other than sometime early in the

2017 - 2018 school year. It is clear, however, that that occasion

was the last time that Respondent was in the front office area at

Choctaw.

53. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams stated that she was not

alleging or asserting that Mr. Hall had committed racial

discrimination, nor that he made adverse remarks about her color,

age, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, or marita l status. And

Mrs. Williams does not allege that Respondent made any comments

about her body parts, the way her clothing fit, or asked to take

photos of her while he was at Choctaw. Rather, those allegations

allegedly occurred while Respondent was at Edw ins, were

unreported for years and could not be corroborated.

54. There is no evidence that Respondent ever told

Mrs. Williams to perform any improper act and then threatened her

with consequences if she failed to comply. There is also no

evidence that R espondent ever had authority to make employment

decisions affecting Mrs. Williams.

Mrs. WilliamsÓ House

55. Respondent first met Mrs. Williams prior to the time

related in any of the allegations, when he went by her house to

inquire about some tire rims that her husband had for sale.

56. Mrs. Williams testified that in the summer of 2017, two

weeks prior to the start of school, Respondent came by her house

and parked at the curb. Her son alerted her that Respondent

wanted to talk to her. She testified that she was upset because

Respondent was there and she spoke with Respondent while he sat

in his car. She could not recall what was discussed, but knows

the conversation lasted only a couple of minutes, and that she

then turned around and walked away. 3/

57. Mrs. Williams stated that Respondent had been by her

home on several different occasions but could not elaborate on

any other incidents.

58. Respondent acknowledged that he had gone by

Mrs. WilliamsÓ house because he does lawn service and was ridin g

by her house. As he recalled, he noticed her son in the yard and

asked him to get Mrs. Williams. Respondent and Mrs. Williams had

a brief conversation.

59. At no time during that conversation, or any other

conversation, did Mrs. Williams tell Responde nt to Ðstay away,Ñ

Ðleave me alone,Ñ or make any other gesture or comment indicating

that Respondent was to avoid her. Further, there is insufficient

evidence to show that anyone from the School Board told

Respondent to avoid contact with Mrs. Williams.

Alleged Failure to Follow Directives

60. Respondent acknowledged that shortly after starting at

Choctaw, he had been verbally advised to avoid the front office.

Mr. Mims, the School BoardÓs zone manager for custodial services,

was the first person to ad vise Respondent to stay away from the

front office. The Dean of Students Andy Snaith never told

Respondent to avoid the front office.

61. Even though told not to go to the front office,

Respondent had to go by the front office every day. In that

regar d, Mr. Mims told Respondent that they could not keep him out

of the school. Although Respondent understood that the request

that he refrain from going to the front office may have been

designed to minimize his contact with Mrs. Williams, there was no

evid ence or testimony presented by the School Board showing that

Respondent was ever specifically told to avoid Mrs. Williams or

why he was supposed to avoid the front office.

62. Mr. Mims testified that he told Respondent to avoid the

front office twice. H e further testified that he was aware of

Respondent being in the front office only three times over the

course of three school years. When finding out about these

situations, instead of having a face - to - face meeting, Mr. Mims

would merely call Respondent on the phone.

63. Respondent acknowledged going to the front office only

twice in 2017, the first being while looking for Mrs. Sanders and

the second being the conversation with Mrs. Williams when she was

in the mailroom.

64. There is no evidence of a wr itten directive or other

documentation advising Respondent to avoid the front office until

a September 18, 2017, meeting between Respondent, Bill Smith, and

Andy Mims. At that meeting, which was the first meeting between

Mr. Smith and Respondent, Responde nt was specifically advised to

not go into the front office. Respondent has not been in the

front office, nor has Bill Smith received a report that

Respondent has been in the front office since their meeting in

September 2017.

65. Even though there were two instances where Respondent

went to the the front office after speaking with Mr. Mims,

Mr. Mims testified that while Respondent worked for him, he Ðmet

expectations as an employee.Ñ Mr. Mims further testified that

Respondent Ðdid everything I asked hi m to do.Ñ

66. Mr. Mims statements are consistent with his written

evaluations of Mr. HallÓs work performed in May 2017, May 2016,

May 2015, and May 2014. The stated purpose of the evaluations is

to Ðsupport decisions concerning employee discipline, prom otion

and improvement.Ñ

67. RespondentÓs evaluations during the pertinent time

period do not support the discipline sought in this case. To the

contrary, they conclude that he is a hard worker and that he

meets the expectations of his supervisors. Even when he

allegedly received prior discipline while at Choice during the

2014 - 2015 school year, Respondent was not placed on a Ðsuccess

planÑ for improvement and, in fact, received a Ðmeets

expectationsÑ evaluation.

68. The evaluations written by Responde ntÓs supervisors

conclude that Respondent ÐDemonstrates a willingness to accept

authority and direction; Demonstrates appropriate interactions

with staff, clients, students and/or parents; Demonstrates

appropriate oral skills when communicating with others ; [and]

Demonstrates appropriate relations with supervisor and peers.Ñ

69. Recognizing that there were issues at Choctaw unrelated

to Mrs. Williams, Respondent requested transfers to another

school. These transfer requests began during the 2016 - 2017

scho ol year and continued during the beginning of the 2017 -

2018 school year. Even though there were positions available in

the schools where Respondent desired t o transfer, his supervisor,

Mr. Mims, denied RespondentÓs requests for transfers.

CONCLUSIONS OF L AW

70. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to

sections 1012.40(2)(c), 120.569 and 120.57 , Florida Statutes

(2018) , 4 / and the collective bargaining agreement between the

School Board and the Okaloosa County Educational Support

Professional Association (Union Contract).

71. Respondent is an Ðeducational support employeeÑ as

defined in section 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Stat utes, and

Article 2, Section B. of the Union Contract.

72. Sections 1012 .22(1)(f) and 1012.40(2)(c) give the

School Board authority to terminate or suspend educational

support employees without pay and benefits. However, the School

Board may terminate such non - instructional employees only for

"reasons stated in the [Union Con tract] or in district school

board rules in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does

not exist." § 1012.40(2)(b ), Fla. Stat.

73. A rticle 4, section A.4 of the Union Contract provides

that Ð[d]iscipline, . . . shall be fair and for just cause.Ñ The

Union Contract, however, does not define Ðjust causeÑ nor was any

evidence or testimony presented as to how the School Board

defines Ðjust cause.Ñ

74. Section 1012.33(1)(a) defines Ðjust cause,Ñ but that

statute only applies to instructional staff, s taff supervisors,

and school principals. As Respondent is an educational support

employee, section 1012.33(1)(a) does not apply to him. See,

e.g. , Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Torres , Case No. 16 - 3301 ( Fla. DOAH

Oct. 31, 20 16; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd., Dec. 6, 2016).

75. As noted in the Recommended O rder entered by

Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben in Duval Cnty. Sch.

Bd. v. Quiller , Case No. 14 - 1341TTS ( Fla. DOAH July 16, 2014):

In the absence of a rule or written policy

defining just cause, the School Boar d has

discretion to set standards which subject an

employee to discipline. See Dietz v. Lee

Cnty.Sch. Bd. , 647 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA

1994). Nonetheless, just cause for

discipline must rationally and logically

relate to an employee's conduct in the

perf ormance of the employee's job duties and

be in connection with inefficiency,

delinquency, poor leadership, and lack of

role modeling or misconduct. State ex. rel.

Hathaway v. Smith , 35 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1948);

In Re: Grievance of Towle , 665 A.2d 55 (Vt.

1 995).

76. The School Board bears the burden of proving each

element of each charged offense by a preponderance of the

evidence. See Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Lake Cnty. , 569 So. 2d 883

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990). A preponderance of the evidence is evidence

that mo re likely than not tends to prove the proposition set

forth by a proponent. Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 289 (Fla.

2000).

7 7. The notice letter from the s uperintendent to Respondent

asserts that she was recommending his termination for Ðgross

insubord ination, misconduct and harassment,Ñ but does not

reference a School Board policy or other law or rule. However,

the Nove mber 14, 2017, letter from the assistant s uperintendent

to Respondent asserts that his conduct was considered Ðgross

insubordination, misconduct in office and harassmentÑ and

references School Board Policy 07 - 03 and School Board

Policy 06 Ï 27.

78. A copy of School Board Policy No. 06 - 27 introduced at

the final hearing, last revised October 26, 2015, states in

pertinent part:

(A) Hara ssment concerning an individualÓs

race, color, sex, age, religious beliefs,

national or ethnic origin, marital status,

pregnancy or disability is a form of

misconduct which undermines the integrity of

the employment relationship. The Board

shall make an e ffort to assure employees and

volunteers are protected from such

harassment. Employees, volunteers and

persons with whom the Board contracts for

services shall not engage in any conduct

which unreasonably interferes with the

following:

(1) an individual Ós responsibilities,

performance, or orderly process of work;

(2) an individualÓs freedom from

intimidating, coercive, abrasive, hostile,

or offensive working environment.

Violation of this policy will not be

tolerated.

(B) Adverse remarks or epithets and other

forms of harassment concerning an

individualÓs race, color, national or ethnic

background, sex, age, religion, marital

status, pregnancy or disability are strictly

prohibited. A disability exists when an

individual has any of the following:

(1 ) a physical or mental impairment which

substantially limits one or more of the

individualÓs major life activities;

(2) a record of such an impairment;

(3) is regarded as having such an

impairment.

(C) Sexual harassment by an employee or

volunteer or person with whom the district

contracts for services toward another

individual while under the jurisdiction of

the district is strictly prohibited. Sexual

harassment includes unwelcomed sexual

advances, requests for sexual favors, and

other verbal or phys ical conduct of a sexual

nature when the following occurs:

(1) submission to such conduct is made

either explicitly or implicitly as a term or

condition of an individualÓs employment;

(2) submission to or rejection of such

conduct by an individual is us ed as the

basis for employment decisions affecting

such individuals;

(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect

of unreasonable interference with an

individualÓs work performance or creating an

intimidating, hostile, or offensive working

environment.

(D) Any conduct of a sexual nature directed

at a student by an employee or volunteer is

strictly prohibited. Sexually harassing

conduct may include, but is not limited to,

commentary about an individualÓs body,

sexually degrading words to describe an

indivi dual, offensive comments, off - color

language or jokes, innuendos, and sexually

suggestive objects, books, magazines,

photographs, cartoons or pictures.

79. As set forth in School Board Policy Nos. 06 - 26(F) and

06 - 27(H), Ð[a] substantiated violation of po licy prohibiting

harassment by an employee shall subject such employee to

appropriate disciplinary action, and may be cause for

termination, subject to applicable procedural requirements.Ñ

80. School Board Policy No. 06 - 28(A) provides that

Ð[v]iolations m ust be reported within forty - five (45) days of the

date the Complainant knew or should have known of the event(s)

giving rise to the alleged violation.Ñ

81. Article 4, section A.11. of the Union Contract states:

Employees, volunteers and persons with who m

the Board contracts for services shall not

engage in any conduct which unreasonably

interferes with the following:

a. an individualÓs responsibilities,

performance, or orderly process of work;

b. an individualÓs freedom from an

intimidating, coerci ve, abrasive, hostile or

offensive working environment.

Violation of this policy will not be

tolerated. (Reference School Board

Policy 6 - 28 for more information).

82. As outlined in the Findings of Fact, above, the

evidence was insufficient to show th at Respondent haras sed

Mrs. Williams Ðconcerning [her] race, color, national or ethnic

background, sex, age, religion, marital status, pregnancy or

disability.Ñ While some of RespondentÓs alleged comments were

perceived as inappropriate by Mrs. Williams, there was no

evidence that his comments or actions were sufficient to

constitute "harassment , " as that term has been analyzed in the

legal context. Cf. Maldonado v. Publix Supermarkets , 939 So. 2d

290, 293 - 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(Ð Where harassment is [alle gedly]

perpetrated by a co - worker (as opposed to a supervisor or

manager), to establish a hostile work environment sexual

harassment claim, an employee must show [among other things] . .

. [that] the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual

harassment, s uch as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,

and other conduct of a sexua l nature . . . [and that] the

harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily

abusive working envi ronment . . . .Ñ); see also Faragher v. City

of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998)(Ða sexually objectionable

environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive

. . . Òsimple teasing,Ó [citation omitted] offhand comments, and

isolated inciden ts (unless extremely serious) will not amountÑ to

a hostile work environment).

83. The evidence did not show that RespondentÓs alleged

conduct towards Mrs. Williams created an intimidating, coercive,

abrasive, hostile, or offensive working environment, wh ich would

constitute harassment or that it otherwise interfered with

Mrs. WilliamsÓ ability to perform the responsibilities or orderly

process of her work.

84. Mrs. Williams did not report any of RespondentÓs

alleged conduct at Edwins within 45 days of the date that she

knew or should have known of such events giving rise to

RespondentÓs alleged violations as required by School Board

Policy 06 - 27(A).

85. Regarding RespondentÓs alleged conduct while at

Choctaw, rather than indicating that Respondent eng aged in

repetitive, persistent behavior, the evidence showed that

Respondent came by the office approximately three times over the

course of two years. Further, there was no testimony that

Respondent referred to Mrs. Williams as Ðbaby girlÑ during his

emp loyment at Choctaw.

86. The School Board also asserts that RespondentÓs use of

the term Ðhot minuteÑ in asking Mrs. Williams if they could talk

on one occasion, somehow created a hostile work environment, or

was some other form of harassment. Mrs. Willia ms was unable to

elaborate on what Ðhot minuteÑ meant. On the other hand,

Respondent provided credible testimony that Ðhot minuteÑ refers

to a short time period.

87. In addition, Mrs. Williams testified that she was not

alleging or asserting that Respon dent had committed racial

discrimination, or that he had made adverse remarks about her

color, age, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, or marital status.

There is no evidence that Respondent ever threatened

Mrs. Williams with adverse consequences if she di d not perform a

requested act. In fact, Respondent had no authority to make

decisions affecting her employment.

88. Lastly, Mrs. Williams testified that no one from the

School Board has ever told her that she was not performing her

tasks, nor did she al lege that she has been unable to perform her

tasks because of RespondentÓs actions or behavior.

89. In sum, the evidence was insufficient to show that

Respondent violated School Board Policy 06 - 27(A), (B) or (C).

90. With regard to School Board P olicy 06 - 27(D), recited

above, that policy, by its terms, is not applicable in this case

because a violation of that policy requires conduct of a sexual

nature directed at a student by an employee or volunteer. There

was no such allegation made against Respondent , nor did the

evidence indicate a violation of that policy.

Misconduct and Gross Insubordination

91. In addition to alleging harassment, the Nove mber 14,

2017, letter from the a ssistant s uperintendent to Respondent also

asserts that RespondentÓs conduct was considered Ðmisconduct in

office or gross insubordination.Ñ A copy of School Board

Policy 07 - 03, the alleged basis for this charge, was not

introduced into evidence nor did the School Board provide any

testimony as to how the policy was being applied to Mr. Hall.

92. As noted in RespondentÓs Proposed Recommended Order, by

Ð[s]earching the School BoardÓs website, one is able to find the

policy.Ñ As appearing on that website, School Board

Policy 07 - 03, entitled ÐEmployment Conditions for Educational

Support Personnel,Ñ last revised July 13, 2015, states:

(A) Educational support personnel shall be

appointed following the ÐPersonnel

ProceduresÑ.

(B) Any educational support employee

initially employed by the Board shall serve

a six - month probationar y period before being

considered a regular employee.

(C) A regular employee shall be entitled to

due process in respect to his/her employment

status. The Board may dismiss a regular

employee only for proper cause. Proper

cause shall mean any of the fo llowing:

immorality, misconduct in office,

incompetency, gross insubordination, willful

neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction

of any crime involving moral turpitude, or

lack of performance.

(D) Educational support personnel shall be

entitled to due process with respect to

their employment status following completion

of the probationary period and are

recommended for reappointment on an annual

basis. Written contracts are not issued for

educational support personnel.

93. School Board Policy 07 - 03 fails to further define

Ðimmorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or

conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude, or lack of

performance.Ñ

94. Despite lack of evidence as to how the School Board

defines the charges brought against Respondent, as suggested in

RespondentÓs Proposed Recommended Order, the undersigned has

considered the State Board of EducationÓs definitions for

guidance. The State Board of Education has created rules

go verning the criteria for suspension and dismissal based on the

Ðjust causeÑ standard. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A - 5.056. That

rule states that Ðj ust causeÑ means cause that is legally

sufficient and that Ðeach of the charges upon which just cause

for a di smissal action against specified school personnel may be

pursued are set forth in Sections 1012.33 and 1012.335, [Florida

Statutes].Ñ Although the rule is used as a guide in this

analysis, it should be noted that sections 1012.33 and 1012.335

each deal so lely with instructional personnel. As previously

noted, Respondent is not an instructional personnel.

Misconduct in Office

95. Although not identified by the School Board as a basis

for its action against Respondent, Florida Administrative Code

Rule 6A - 5.056(2) defines Ðmisconduct in officeÑ as

a. A violation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession in Florida as adopted in

Rule 6A - 10.080, F.A.C.;

b. A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florid a as adopted in Rule 6A -

10.081, F.A.C.;

c. A violation of the adopted school board

rules;

d. Behavior that disrupts the student's

learning environment; or

e. Behavior that reduces the teacher's

ability or his or her colleagues' ability to

effectively perform duties.

96. Subsections a., b., d. 5/ and e., do not pertain to this

case because Respondent is not employed as a teacher or

instructional professional.

97. However, the definition of misconduct in office set

forth in rule 6A - 5.056(2)(c), quoted above, includes Ðviolation

of the adopted school board rules.Ñ Therefore, arguably,

applying rule 6A - 5.056(2)(c) as guidance, proof that Respondent

violated either School Board Policy 06 - 027 or the provisions of

School Board Policy 07 - 03, quoted above, w ould be a basis for

finding that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office. The

evidence, however, does not support such a finding.

Gross Insubordination

98. It would appear from the testimony solicited at hearing

by the School Board that the Ðgross insubordinationÑ charge is

based solely on the recommendation and later request for

Respondent to avoid going into the Ðfront office.Ñ

99. School Board Policy 07 - 03 does not define Ðgross

insubordination.Ñ However, once again , drawing on r ule 6A - 5.056

fo r guidance, rule 6A - 5.056(4) defines Ðgross insubordinationÑ as

Ðthe intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in

nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or

malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the

requi red duties.Ñ

100. The evidence submitted in this case was insufficient

to show that Respondent intentionally refused to obey a direct

order or otherwise failed in the performance of his required

duties. Rather, the evidence adduced at hearing indicated t hat

Respondent had initially been told verbally to avoid the front

office. The evidence did not show how many times these

discussions took place. According to Mr. Mims, over the course

of three school years, he told Respondent only twice to avoid the

fro nt office. And, Respondent had plausible excuses for the

times that Respondent went to the front office area.

101. No written directive, no lesser discipline, no

discussion about consequences, or any warnings from RespondentÓs

supervisors were given to Respondent prior to September 2017.

Cf. Dolega v. Sch. Bd. of Miami - Dade Cnty. , 840 So. 2d 445

(Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(gross insubordination found after failing to

comply with written directives); Rosario v. Burke , 605 So. 2d 523

(Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(finding no insubordination where there was no

letter warning directly and instructing the employee to cease).

102. There was no evidence that a written directive was

given to Respondent prior to his discussion with his ultimate

supervisor on September 18, 2017. Th e evidence is undisputed

that, after that meeting, Respondent did not go back to the front

office.

103. There was also lack of sufficient evidence to

demonstrate that Respondent failed to perform his required duties

and it is found that Respondent did not intentionally disobey a

directive and is not guilty of gross insubordination.

104. In sum, it is concluded that the School Board failed

to establish just cause to terminate Respondent as that term is

used in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement , Florida

Statutes, School Board Policy, and other applicable law.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by

Petitioner, Okaloosa County School Board:

1. Dismissing th e allegations against Respondent in this

case and rescinding any discipline imposed thereby;

2. Reinstating RespondentÓs employment with the Okaloosa

County School Board as though there was no break in service of

his employment;

3. Restoring all salary, benefits, and rights from the

date of his last paid workday to the date of his reinstatement,

plus interest from the date that any such pay or benefit was

withheld, as appropriate under applicable law; less any earnings

or benefits that Respondent receive d during the time between his

termination and the time of his reinstatement.

DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JAMES H. PETERSON, III

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The D eSoto 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 9th day of November, 2018.

ENDNOTES

1/ School Boa rd Policy No. 06 - 28(E) states that a formal equity

complaint is:

A written allegation officially made by an

applicant, volunteer or district employee

stating that there has been action or

inaction on the basis of race, color, sex,

age, religion, national or ethnic origin,

marital status, pregnancy or disability

which constitutes discrimination or

harassment and which was committed at the

work location or under work conditions,

circumstances, situations or otherwise

within the school systemÓs scope of

respo nsibility . . . .

2/ The evidence indicates that Choice and OTC are in the same

facility.

3/ Mrs. WilliamsÓ testimony that she had a conversation with

Respondent for a couple of minutes is inconsistent with her

email attached to her Formal Complaint, w hich does not mention a

conversation, but rather alleges:

I was on the phone walking out of my home, I

looked up and saw Steve sitting out in front

of my home rolling down his window motioning

me to come talk to him. I turned to return

inside to get my hu sband, who is law

enforcement, but Steve drove off in his green

avalanche.

4/ All references to Florida Statutes are to the current

version, unless otherwise indicated.

5 / Subsection d., which references rule 6A - 10.081, by its terms,

applies to profes sional educators. Rule 6A - 10.81(2)(a) sets

forth an educatorÓs obligations to students. The School Board

did not allege any conduct involvi ng a student as a basis for

Mr. HallÓs termination. However, Mrs. Williams made allegations

involving her daughter that occurred years before her Formal

Complaint that occurred at Edwins. Mrs. Williams did not report

this incident to the School Board or otherwise file a complaint

so as to cause it to be investigated by the School Board. Aside

from the fact that Resp ondent is not a professional educator and

was not interacting with Mrs. WilliamsÓ daughter as a teacher,

and based on a lack of a specific charge and a lack of sufficient

evidence, it is found that Respondent was not subject to and

otherwise did not violat e rule 6A - 10.081.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire

Avery D. McKnight, Esquire

Allen Norton & Blue, P.A.

906 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

(eServed)

Mark S. Levine, Esquire

H. B. Stivers, Esquire

Levine & Stivers , LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Mary Beth Jackson, Superintendent

School District of Okaloosa County

120 Lowery Place Southeast

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 - 5595

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Edu cation

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

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.